To maintain their market dominance, a monopoly has only two possible solutions to the prospect of losing customers:

1. Improve their products and services
2. Coerce their customers to stay

Because the foundation of government authority is theft, they do not even have the option to maintain dominance through superior products and services. No individual desires to be stolen from, so there really is no way to make their theft more palatable.

Now, coercion need not appear violent, so governments which purport to “love freedom,” may disguise their theft in one of three ways (usually, they employ a combination of both):

1. Defer the discomfort of theft, so their subjects focus on the immediate pleasure
2. Brainwash the subject, so they believe right is wrong and wrong is right
3. Confuse the subject, so they don’t recognize the theft as the source of their pain

Each of these approaches are time consuming and expensive, so smaller governments usually tend to abandon the effort in favor of openly violent oppression.

1. Package Oppression with Pleasure

People derive pleasure from a wide variety of sources. When the government decides to offer pleasure as a salve to disguise their ongoing theft, they create myriads of “special interest groups,” which bring definition to an otherwise vague target.

If you need to steal children to spend in foreign wars, you will find that building shelters for homeless veterans or unwanted puppies will provide great pleasure to people who profess a concern for the poor (at least, so far as to consolidate them into a neighborhood not so close to home) or claim a love for animals (that eclipses their love for their own species).

2. “Educate” the Subject

Human beings are typically born with an inherent sense of right and wrong. Undoubtedly, there are many variations that derive from the fundamentals as the many special interest groups, mentioned above, demonstrate. What is often referred to as “natural law,” however, is basically the same across all healthy adult humans. Unfortunately, for a government, this natural law includes an animosity toward thieves. To counter this, an extensive marketing campaign must be undertaken to “re-educate” the subject, and convince them that slavery is good for them.

This is most easily accomplished by introducing new languages, consisting of highly technical terms with little basis in day-to-day reality. That way, despite the seeming inconsistency between cherishing the value of each child in our society and the practicality of stuffing them into massive schoolrooms like sardines, a long and boring discussion of the technicalities will convince the subject that you know more than they do about the subject.

3. Disconnect the Cause and Effect

In those cases where the discomfort cannot be deferred long enough, or there isn’t enough time to prepare for a power grab with a propaganda campaign, the best a government can do is to confuse or distract the subject so they don’t recognize the government as the source of their inevitable pain.

Using an overt scapegoat, as the National Socialists in Germany did with Jews during the mid-20^th Century, will work in times of great crisis, but more subtle definitions of classes amongst the people will always work to create enough dissension that your painful administration can be blamed on “the rich” or “the poor,” or “the blacks” or “the whites.” If you can introduce the concept of “legality” into your class definitions, your support will cross many boundaries: “illegal alien,” or “illicit sex workers,” or “illegal drug abusers.”

Here, for your consideration, is my submission.

What is aggression?

According to Princeton’s WordNet, “aggression” refers to the following five definitions:

1. A disposition to behave aggressively.
2. A feeling of hostility that arouses thoughts of attack.
3. Violent action that is hostile and usually unprovoked.
4. The act of initiating hostilities.
5. Deliberately unfriendly behavior.

In the first fifteen pages of The Market for Liberty, the Tannehills use the actual word “aggression” only three times, but refer to the initiation of force or violence many times. On page 4, they introduce the phrase “initiation of force” with a note that even the threat of force is considered aggression:

The terms “initiated force” and “coercion” are used to include not only the actual initiation of force but also the threat of such force and any substitute for force. This is because a man can be coerced into acting against his will by threats or deprived of value by force-substitutes, such as fraud or theft by stealth, just as surely as he can by the actual use of physical force. The threat of force is intimidation, which is, itself, a form of force.^[1]

An extremely important facet to understanding what is aggression, is recognizing that it is more than mere force, but the initiation of force. On page 10, the Tannehills explains that

[t]his doesn’t mean that a man may not defend himself if someone else initiates force against him. It does mean that he may not start the use of force. To initiate force against anyone is always wrong, because it compels the victim to act contrary to his own judgment.^[2]

How can we distinguish between aggression and other kinds of undesirable influence?

The paragraph just quoted also introduces another important factor to consider, when determining whether an action may be aggression: “it compels the victim to act contrary to his own judgment.” If the force being levied against a person is not causing that person to violate their own principles, then it may not really be aggression, but only a form of persuasion.

To visualize this, let’s consider an example that is commonly treated as aggression within the libertarian community: taxation. More specifically, let’s imagine that taxes were levied for specific accounts within the overall government budget.

Mr. Tax Collector arrives at my doorstep and demands that I pay my National Defense Tax. Because waging war is a violation of my own, personal principles, the dictate to pay towards the military budget is an act of aggression: the tax collector is threatening violence if I do not pay, despite my own judgment that such a “contribution” would be immoral.

On the other hand, when Mr. Tax Collector knocks at my neighbor’s door, Sgt. Major Blowhard, the demand to pay the National Defense Tax might be an inconvenience to the Sgt. Major, but he was already planning to contribute to the war effort. (This simplistic parable, of course, does not take into consideration the likelihood that Sgt. Major Blowhard may have other principles, such as his commitment to feed his children on a regular basis, that would interfere with his desire to pay the tax, and thus make Mr. Tax Collector an aggressor.)

There’s another angle to this concept of non-aggression use of “force,” and that is what I would categorize as psychological warfare. In essence, if a person holds principles of liberty that would set him against a force of government, but they held certain conveniences to be of higher value than the principles of liberty, it is very likely that he might willingly surrender his liberties for the sake of convenience.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ^[3]

1. ^[1] Tannehill, Morris and Linda. The Market for Liberty. Lansing: 1970, page 4 (footnote 1). ↩
2. ^[2] Ibid., page 10. ↩
3. ^[3] Franklin, Benjamin. Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin. London: A.J. Valpy, 1818, page 270. ↩

They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increase afterwards to infinity. Before this fall they represent him only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest. After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space.

“Chapter V – Examination in Detail of the Preceding Bases.” The Age of Reason, page 13.

Not constrained by reality, the image of Satan changes to suit the need of the moment. Because it’s difficult to convince people that a loving, almighty God would actually create such an evil being as Satan, he needs to begin his career as an average angel. But, after he rebels against God, somehow, he is transformed into the omnipresent creature that rivals God himself!

Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.

“Chapter V – Examination in Detail of the Preceding Bases.” The Age of Reason, page 13.

Mr. Paine makes a very important point, next. In my experience, Christians get very personal when the veracity of their mythology is called into question. If you are a Christian reading this, I expect that you are feeling defensive right now, as though my words against the stories you believe are intended to accuse you of some crime.

That many good men have believed this strange fable, and lived very good lives under that belief (for credulity is not a crime) is what I have no doubt of. In the first place, they were educated to believe it, and they would have believed anything else in the same manner.

“Chapter V – Examination in Detail of the Preceding Bases.” The Age of Reason, page 13.

As Mr. Paine explained in his book, so I reiterate: you, dear Christian, are the victim, in my eyes, not the victimizer. You have been sold a “bill of goods,” and are being manipulated into conformity.

IT is upon this plain narrative of facts, together with another case I am going to mention, that the Christian mythologists, calling themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which for absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.

“Chapter IV – Of the Bases of Christianity.” The Age of Reason, page 11.

The “absurdity and extravagance” of Christianity’s most fundamental mythology is difficult for American Christians to discern. They are as normal to us, as the stories of Santa Claus and Abraham Lincoln.

After giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have supposed that the church mythologists would have been kind enough to send him back again to the pit, or, if they had not done this, that they would have put a mountain upon him, (for they say that their faith can remove a mountain) or have put him under a mountain, as the former mythologists had done, to prevent his getting again among the women, and doing more mischief. But instead of this, they leave him at large, without even obliging him to give his parole. The secret of which is, that they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of making him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews, ALL the Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and Mahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness of the Christian Mythology?

“Chapter IV – Of the Bases of Christianity.” The Age of Reason, page 11.

Nowhere, within the Torah nor even the entire Tenach, is there any mention of an evil creature named “Satan.” There is a Hebrew word, transliterated into English as “satan:”

שׂטן

This word, like the infamous word “messiah,” has been twisted way beyond its original meaning, by Christians. A “satan” is anyone who opposes. It is an adversary, not the adversary.

The founders of Christianity were crafty men, who knew the immense power of an iconic monster, in their desire to control the thoughts and behaviors of their followers. Without a “boogey man” to provide a common enemy and distract their attention away from the real monsters, people are too apt to oppose their own leaders.

You can see this mentality everywhere. In early 20th Century America, we fought the Nazis. After they disappeared from the scene, our wise leaders focused our attention on the Communists. When the Soviet Union broke up, they pointed us at the “Terrorists.”

It’s unfortunate, for those who would rule over Americans, that religion has been officially rejected by the State, because Christianity has been cultivating the perfect enemy for a couple thousand years, with great success. If the existence of the Satan could be disproven (which is impossible, because you cannot prove a negative), there would be no need for Christianity’s Jesus to magically save you from Satan’s lair, Hell.

NOTHING that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before, by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.

“Chapter III – Concerning the Character of Jesus Christ, and His History.” The Age of Reason, page 9.

When you have a couple hours, I highly recommend a great video presentation by Nehemia Gordon, a Karaite Jew in Israel, wherein he describes his research into the history of the man commonly known as “Jesus,” and how the ancient Hebrew texts demonstrate that his message was very different from the modern agenda of Christianity.

Nehemia makes the case, and I agree with him, that Jesus was essentially a Karaite Jew, who was preaching a message of “getting back to basics.” I doubt that Nehemia understands what anarchism is, nor that he would make the same conclusions that I do about Jesus’ message, but I don’t think Jesus was very different from any other left libertarian with public speaking skills.

Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or anything else. Not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.

“Chapter III – Concerning the Character of Jesus Christ, and His History.” The Age of Reason, page 9.

Jesus was a popular speaker, in his day, and he became a convenient hook for men like Paul to use to draw people into their invented religion, Christianity. The fact that these writings were published after Jesus was dead and buried gives a hint that, perhaps, their authors either (a) didn’t recognize the significance of the man they later claimed was the most significant man in all of history, or (b) they hadn’t formulated the plan to use him as the hero of their revolution.

Even if some of the writers of the New Testament were sincere, their writings were, at the very least, colored by the system of religion that was already being organized by the time they committed their recollections of the life of Jesus to paper. Knowing how susceptible human nature is to the political process, I have to assume they were also quite motivated to “toe the line.” Who knows what, more accurate, histories were written and lost, because the Church rejected them for failing to meet their criteria?

That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality, and the equality of man; but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of priest-hood. The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were then subject and tributary; and it is not improbable that the Roman government might have some secret apprehension of the effects of his doctrine as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his life.

“Chapter III – Concerning the Character of Jesus Christ, and His History.” The Age of Reason, page 10.

Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

“Chapter II – Of Missions and Revelations.” The Age of Reason, page 7.

On the one hand, I can state with no reservations, that I agree with these two paragraphs. On the other hand, I believe Mr. Paine was incorrect to include Moses and the Torah.

Before you dismiss me as schizophrenic, let me explain further.

YHVH did not call upon Moses to be some sort of “conduit” between God and the people. Moses was chosen to rescue an enslaved people from their oppressors. In fact, it’s only a point of fact that the Torah was “given by God to Moses face to face,” because the original plan was for the entire congregation of Israel to receive the Torah directly from YHVH. The people were too afraid, and begged Moses to stand in their stead.

Regardless of the channel of communications used to transmit the Torah, the real fundamental difference between the Torah and the so-called “Word of God” that Christians and Muslims claim through their “certain individuals,” is that the Torah was nothing more than a civil Constitution for establishing a God-fearing society on earth and in time. It does not require world domination, it does not speak about a paradise beyond death, and it is perfectly happy to coexist with the rest of the world.

That does not mean, unfortunately, that Judaism is free from the corruption that every religious institution eventually embraces. To the extent that a Jew mystifies the Torah and transforms it from the example of natural law that it is, into a magical religious creed, they are perverting the beauty and simplicity of the Torah.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word ‘revelation.’ Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

“Chapter II – Of Missions and Revelations.” The Age of Reason, page 7.

The purest form of Judaism, Karaite Judaism, understands this idea, and has passed it down through the generations with their well-known adage: “Search well in the Scriptures and do not rely on anyone’s opinion.” (See “What is Karaism?”)

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so, the commandments carrying no internal evidence of divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.

“Chapter II – Of Missions and Revelations.” The Age of Reason, page 7.

The Torah isn’t a religious text, so it really doesn’t matter who authored it. It is a set of laws and examples of those laws being applied, that YHVH gave to Israel so they would enjoy liberty and prosperity. As a matter of religion, I choose to believe the stories contained within the Torah at face value. Which means, I choose to believe that an almighty deity named YHVH gave the Torah to a real group of people, the children of Israel. But, accepting the historical factualness of these stories is not a requirement for the laws to be effective.

When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

“Chapter II – Of Missions and Revelations.” The Age of Reason, page 8.

If Christianity did not require blind faith in the veracity of this amazing story of birth from virginity, then perhaps I would still be a “Christian.” There is no such requirement for religious faith in Karaite Judaism. Obviously, if you do not believe the stories of the Torah, then you are not actually a Karaite (because the definition of “Karaite Judaism” is that you believe these stories to have occurred), but YHVH does not require that you become a Karaite for the Torah to protect your individual liberty.

Exodus 12:49 One Instruction shall there be for the native and for the sojourner that sojourns in your midst.

The Torah, page 74.

“Instruction,” here, is the word torah. Simply put, the Torah promises freedom to everyone who abides by it, whether or not you accept the historical context for its delivery, or the cultural traditions for commemorating it.

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.

“Chapter II – Of Missions and Revelations.” The Age of Reason, page 8.

It has been my intention, for several years past, to publish my thoughts upon religion; I am well aware of the difficulties that attend the subject, and from that consideration, had reserved it to a more advanced period of life.

“Chapter 1 – The Author’s Profession of Faith.” The Age of Reason, page 5.

There is nothing in this first chapter, that I could not say myself. For years, now, I have thought about and talked about writing an article, series of articles, or even a book, about my own religious perspectives and the story about my journey from conservative, evangelical Christianity to my current package of beliefs that I am calling Voluntary Karaism.

As Mr. Paine so clearly declares, I agree, that

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

“Chapter 1 – The Author’s Profession of Faith.” The Age of Reason, page 5.

Anybody who knows me, knows that I have frequently made the point that I believe God judges a person by the words they speak, and delivers his blessings or curses accordingly. This is why I believe YHVH can and does bless Christians, despite what I understand to be their serious errors. Thomas Paine describes a very similar idea, when he explains what “infidelity” really means:

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and, in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?

“Chapter 1 – The Author’s Profession of Faith.” The Age of Reason, page 5.

I’m excited to read this book, so I’m going to post my comments, here, as I read along. I will tag each post with “The Age of Reason,” so when I’m finished you should be able to find a complete commentary on the book, using that tag.

(14) When you enter the land that YHVH your God is giving you, and you possess it and settle in it, should you say: “I will set over me a king like all the nations that are around me…”

Deuteronomy 17. The Five Books of Moses, Everett Fox

God foresaw the common man’s predilection for a king they can touch and see and show off to their neighbors. He never condoned it, but in the very spirit of freedom and liberty that he desired to instill in mankind, he refused to forcibly prevent men from giving themselves into slavery.

(4) So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Shemu’el at Rama,
(5) they said to him: “Here, you have grown-old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. So-now, make us a king to lead-us-as-judge, like all the (other) nations!”
(6) Now the matter was evil in the eyes of Shemu’el, when they said: “Give us a king, to lead-us-as-judge!” So Shemu’el prayed to YHVH,
(7) and YHVH said to Shemu’el: “Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; indeed, it is not you whom they have rejected, indeed it is I whom they have rejected, indeed it is I whom they have rejected from being-king over them,
(8) in accordance with all the doings that they have done from the day I brought them up from Egypt until this day: they have abandoned me, serving other gods! Thus they are doing to you as well!
(9) So-now, hearken to their voice; however: indeed, you are to warn, yes, warn them, (by) telling them the practice of the king who will reign-as-king over them.”

I Samuel 8. Give Us a King!, Everett Fox

In the original Hebrew language of the Tenach, the word used for “king,” is melek (מלך). This is the noun form of the verb, which means “to become one who rules,” malak (מלך). Except for the baggage this word has, in English, this wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, depending on what it means “to rule.” Theoretically, we might think “ruling” is a synonym to “organizing” or “managing,” in which case, this could be relatively toothless office.

The Hebrew word that is used whenever the Tenach is describing “ruling” or “reigning,” in the context of a melek, is mashal (משׁל). According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, which derives all of its word definitions directly from the Tenach itself, mashal means “to rule, have dominion, reign.”

This might seem to be a bit of a circular exercise, but that’s an intrinsic part of what it means to be a king. Later in history, kings invented all sorts of fanciful explanations for the source of their power, but they were all lies. The last thing any king wants is for the people to understand the true nature of a king’s power: circular reasoning.

The real key, here, is in the word “dominion.” Noah Webster defined this word as follows:

DOMINION, n. [L. See Dominant.]

1. Sovereign or supreme authority; the power of governing and controlling.
   The dominion of the Most High is an everlasting dominion. Dan 4.
2. Power to direct, control, use and dispose of at pleasure; right of possession and use without being accountable; as the private dominion of individuals.
3. Territory under a government; region; country; district governed, or within the limits of the authority of a prince or state; as the British dominions.
4. Government; right of governing. Jamaica is under the dominion of Great Britain.
5. Predominance; ascendant.
6. An order of angels.
   Whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers. Col 1.
7. Persons governed.
   Judah was his sanctuary; Israel his dominion. Psa 114.

American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster

Notice the tight relationship between “dominion” and “government.”

Returning to the Tenach for a more relevant definition of “dominion,” let’s review YHVH’s warnings about a king.

(10) Shemu’el said all the words of YHVH to the people who were requesting from him a king,

(11) he said: “This will be the practice of the king who will reign-as-king over you: Your sons he will take-away, setting him in his chariots and among his riders, so that they run ahead of his chariot;

(12) “to make them commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, to plow his plowing and harvest his harvest, and to make his battle weapons and his chariot weapons;

(13) “your daughters he will take-away as ointment-mixers, as cooks, and as bakers;

(14) “your fields, your vineyards, and your olive-groves, the best-ones, he will take-away and give to his servants;

(15) “your sowing-seed and your vine-fruit he will tithe and give to his officers and to his servants;

(16) “your servants, your maids, and your young-men, the best ones, and your donkeys, he will take-away, that they may do his work;

(17) “your flock he will tithe, and you yourselves will be for him as slaves.

(18) “And you will cry out on that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but YHVH will not answer you on that day!”

I Samuel 8. Give Us a King!, Everett Fox

Imagine how these same acts of dominion might look today:

• Your children will be drafted into the military
• Your children will be drafted into a civilian service corps
• Your homes and business will be seized and given to various “Czars” to manage and plunder
• Your employees and contractors will be reassigned to government work
• Your produce will be taxed
• You yourselves will be as slaves

Did the Hebrews pay attention to these warnings? No, they insisted on having a king. Let’s look at why they wanted a king:

(19) But the people refused to hearken to Shemu’el’s voice, they said: “No! Rather, let there be a king over us

(20) “so that we, we too may be like all the (other) nations! Let our king lead-us-as-judge and go-out before us and fight our battles!”

I Samuel 8. Give Us a King!, Everett Fox

There two reasons they wanted a king; neither of which was a good reason:

1. They wanted to conform to their neighbors.
2. They wanted someone else to fight their battles.

For almost 400 years, Israel had been prospering with no king, but YHVH himself (I will save it for another time, to discuss the means and manner of YHVH’s reign as the actual king of Israel). This is the longest running example of anarchy in known history. It is also the earliest record of an entire “nation” living in the freedom of a stateless society.

(25) In those days there was no king in Israel. Each man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Judges 21. Literal Translation of the Bible, Jay P. Green, Sr.