Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

Statists claim it’s okay for them to initiate force if doing so benefits more people than it harms. In other words, you, the individual, are too small to matter. Groups of individuals matter more. But this claim doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny…

Would you think it was good for The State to murder someone you love so their organs could be harvested to save other lives? After all, one heart, two kidneys, one liver, and assorted other body parts, would benefit vastly more lives than the one life lost.

The idea of harming a few to benefit many doesn’t work. Taken to its logical conclusion it creates a license for murder. And, in fact, the logic has been taken to that conclusion millions of times. The State has killed more people than all individual criminals combined.

Jim Babka

About the Author

Jim Babka

Facebook Twitter

Jim Babka is co-founder of the Zero Aggression Project and President of, Inc. He’s an author and former talk show host.
Previously, he was the President of, Inc., defending free press rights all the way to the Supreme Court. He and Susie are the proud, home-schooling parents of three teenagers. He enjoys theology, UFC, target practice, and Tai Chi.

Perry Willis

About the Author

Perry Willis

Facebook Twitter Google+

Perry Willis is the co-founder of the Zero Aggression Project and Downsize DC. He was the National Director of the Libertarian National Committee on two occasions, and ran two Libertarian Party presidential campaigns. He has an extensive background in marketing and fundraising, and has ghost written direct mail appeals for numerous luminaries, including Karl Hess, Ron Paul, Charlton Heston and Harry Browne.

Subscribe form for Lever Pages


Show Comments 78


  1. I like a lot of your ideas and goals, but I think your analogy above is a pretty poor one! I don’t see anything “logical” about your conclusion. But keep up the good work that you are trying to do.

    1. Let’s proceed from the proposition that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (not precisely what Spock meant, but that’s irrelevant—it was only an attention grabber).
      If it is possible for someone else to determine which “needs” of the many are more important than the needs of an individual and they believe they have the power to deprive the individual of his needs in order to benefit the many (which most people in power around the world behave as if they believed), then there’s nothing to prevent the powerful from depriving the individual of even his life, should the benefit to the many (a very subjective quantity) be sufficiently large. Perhaps laws could be enacted to restrict the taking of life (or whatever rights might be considered sacrosanct), but there’s not a logical reason why the powerful wouldn’t eventually try to remove those barriers if there is nothing morally wrong with depriving an individual of his rights.
      If, somehow, murdering a single child would have prevented the Heroshima bombing, would it have been worth it to prevent all that death (assuming Japan would have surrendered anyway)? I assert that it is morally wrong to attempt to try to compare the “worth” of life versus life. What if robbing 10,000 families of their life savings could have prevented the bombing? Would that have been worth it? The conclusion ultimately rests of whether or not it is morally wrong for the powerful to deprive someone of their rights against their will.

      1. You say “it is morally wrong to attempt to try to compare the “worth” of life versus life. ” Let’s take a more realistic example that could happen to us here at home.
        Let’s say you’re at a store or bank and two armed robbers come in. Let’s say there’s a security guard whom they immediately kill to prove their intentions. The thieves claim unless they get what they want they’re going to kill some of the 20 hostages, and menacingly they indicate they’re not satisfied with what they’ve gotten.
        Now let’s ay you’re packing concealed. Due to your proper training you see the opportunity to stop the thieves by killing them with little risk to your fellow hostages.
        Do you have the right to assume the 20 hostages lives are “worth more” than those of the 2 thieves?
        The pacifist says no, but I say absolutely yes. I’d go further and say that not to kill the thieves and as a result more innocent deaths occur you’re partly responsible for their murders.
        But what if it were 5 thieves and only 2 hostages besides you? I believe the same applies.
        I like practical examples. HOWEVER, what right do we have to assume Japan was going to surrender absent a massive invasion of its Homeland?
        By the way, as a retired Air Force combat recon officer I admit I’m biased.

        1. It’s too bad the edit clock cuts one off in the midst of editing, particularly for those of us with fat bumbling fingers. ;-(
          In addition to correcting a typo in my 3rd paragraph and put “say” rather than (ay) in, I was going to add in the next to last paragraph that historical analysis indicates the Japanese military hardliners were predisposed to fight to the bitter end, likely resulting in hundreds of thousands of US casualties and perhaps over a million Japanese casualties.

          1. Recc1, Indeed in an emergency or sudden event, you on the spot have the right to decide to defend yourself and take upon yourself the defense of others, as well as the responsibility for your actions, whether they help or harm innocent bystanders. But the danger is that this kind of reasoning then leads to justification for politicians to use aggression in the name of “the greater good” and that is a logical error, a philosophical mistake and in short a crime. FDR provoked Japan with the intent of forcing such anger that it would attack the US, which they did and over 400,000 Americans were slaughtered. FDR concealed the fact that he had a plan to force the attack. FDR’s claim he was acting for the “greater good” was in fact a lie. So, one must be very careful in this line of reasoning as it leads down a rabbit hole to hell. Ignorance is bliss but it leads to the abyss.

          2. Jack, what was FDR’s provocation of Japan? Was it not telling Japan after the Rape of Nanking the US would embargo US oil and other commodities to Japan unless they stopped their aggression?
            Didn’t the Japanese warn the US it’d consider such an action an act of war? And was it not the threat of being cut off of essential supplies that Japan attacked the US AND Great Britain in the Pacific at the same time?
            So what would’ve been the moral thing to do, continue supplying Japan with raw materials so it could continue its atrocities in Asia?
            By the way, have you ever heard of the saying that hard cases make for bad law? You’re trying to extend my VERY HARD situation into a general law. It doesn’t work. There’re many conspiracies out there about FDR, JFK, LBJ, and GWB. Most are inaccurate and a few quite wrong.
            So what do we do. accept pacifism and tyranny?

        2. You have the right of selfdefense. However, you don’t have the right to decide for others.

          1. Jack, not only do you have the right to defend others, you have the moral obligation to do so. If you don’t and you have the means and ability to do so then you’re complicit in their injuries or deaths.

        3. Read Robert Stinnett’s book, Day of Deceit, where Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum listed the 8 provocatory actions in 1940 that would assure Japan attack the US. FDR impose all 8 actions and a year later Japan attacked. You are free to do as you please, but to use force to make me pay for your beliefs is of course offensive aggression.
          The point I made is that such beliefs as taking forceful decisions in “Hard” situations is and has been extended to justifying political violence and that is, IMHO, immoral.

          1. Jack, so do you believe that the 8 actions listed below were unjustified and the US should’ve let Japan continue it’s aggression in Indochina and SE Asia? The parts in parentheses my views as to why they were to be done)
            The McCollum memo contained an eight-part plan to counter rising Japanese power over East Asia. They included:
            A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore (to protect US bases and concerns)
            B. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies (also the same as in A)
            C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek (to help the Chinese resist Japanese aggression)
            D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore (to serve purpose A as Japan was a naval power)
            E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient (same as in D)
            F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific[,] in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands (to protect US territories & prevent having to fight near US mainland waters)
            G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil (to help with our oil & materials embargo for Japanese aggression)
            H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire (again to try to convince Japan to halt its aggression in China and SE Asia)
            Tell me, do you think American should’ve retreated from all its territories in the Pacific, including from the Philippines to Hawaii, Alaska, Wake Midway, and Guam and gone to a Fortress America defense? Do you think it would’ve worked? Do you think that Hitler didn’t intend to attack America had we let Britain fall?
            Also, how have I used force against you? Is it in implying you over exaggerated what I said about making HARD decisions?

        4. Here’s an argument I haven’t seen in this thread, courtesy of Ayn Rand. These thieves, by disrespecting – and taking – the lives and property of others, have given up their own right to life and property, and deserve to be extinguished. So, a hostage with a concealed weapon, by using it on the thieves, is acting morally.

          1. Oddly enough, this is an fairly ‘Biblical’ argument. The only difference between her argument and scripture is that Scripture claims people are made in the Image of God and are not to be killed without just cause.

  2. As you noted in your email today, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is the statement made by Spock in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. But he doesn’t use it in the sense you’ve taken it (big government can take from the few to benefit the many), but rather as a statement of personal self-sacrifice, freely chosen.
    Interestingly, in the sequel to that film (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock), James T. Kirk sacrifices everything he has to save his friend from death. At the end of the film, the resurrected (and confused) Spock asks him, “Why would you do this?” Kirk replies, “Because the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many.”

    1. Post
  3. Actually Spock did the logical thing. If he didn’t do anything the ship would have exploded and he would have died. If he did lose his live saving the ship from exploding, he still would have died. But in the second scenario his values other than his own life (friends continued existence, StarFleet win, etc.) were preserved.

  4. Heh, heh, heh….the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few so long as one is not of the few. As you are well, aware, Thomas Sowell remarked, It is not what is best but who shall decide what is best. The ol’ commie/socialist spiel so well exposes their denial of free will, God given. It is disgusting that so many people fall for the corrupt, immorality of commie/socialism as is offered recently by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, as evidenced by their support for government imposition of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. The politicians provoke wars of slaughter and mankind is thus deprived of the contributions of all those so killed and all their potential children that will never be born. Your Mental Lever reminded me of Henry Gwyn Jeffreys Moseley, a gifted Physicist, killed by a sniper’s bullet at Galipoli in WW I in 1915. Political leaders are the most dangerous criminals on the planet; they are more lethal than the Bubonic or Black Plague; they corrupt logic/reasoning and lead the people to the bottom of economic destruction; they are the scourge of mankind. Ignorance is bliss but it leads to the abyss. No one but you should decide what is best for you and then you thrive or suffer by your own decisions, else you are a stinkin’ slave to someone else. This Mental Lever exposes the duplicity of those who spew such diabolical beliefs. Good job and thank you.

  5. this is the philosophy for most large systems. which are designed for the many, not for the few.
    That is why insurance will cover the majority of diseases but may not cover the exotic one.
    That is why school and sports and all sorts of activities have rules that don’t take into account individuality.
    and Spock’s analogy is correct when a person applies it to himself and his action that saves others while costing him so dearly.
    Reminds me of those that have been given Congressional medal of honor. The need of the many outweighed the need of the one. Fortunately many receptients were alive to receeive the honor.

  6. As James Lascko wrote, “your analogy above is a pretty poor one!” The problem is your premise. You’re unintentionally insinuating that the state, i.e., the Federation in this hypothetical case, forced Spock’s death. But it was Spock who chose to sacrifice his effectively forfeited life, the one, for the crew, the many.
    By your reckoning, would it have been more moral for Spock to have let the entire crew perish along with him? Both Mike and Barry correctly dispute that.
    But let’s put it another way that to most of us in America is more real. Was it wrong for Jesus to sacrifice his life, the one, for the salvation of many who’d heed God’s call, the many? Yes or no?

    1. Post

      We clearly stated, and I quote, “It’s a great line expressing a noble sentiment. It can even be true for the person who sacrifices himself. But what if Spock had killed Dr. McCoy instead, without McCoy’s approval?” Only by ignoring that key paragraph can you place us in opposition to Spock’s choice.

      1. So you agree that as far as the movie scene went, Spock made a proper choice. After all, I think all of us here would oppose murder. Also, for Spock to have killed McCoy wouldn’t have saved the ship.
        By the same reasoning, Jesus made the right choice, although we can’t exonerate the Romans who sent him to His death.

    2. Our brother Jim and I would agree, since it was Jesus’ choice to lay down his life, it certainly was not wrong. The issue is: Should someone else have forced him to that choice? (yes, I realize this is a counter-factual hypothetical, as He laid down his life by his own choice) The obvious answer, No.

  7. Exactly right Jim, well of course. One can make his own decisions but if anyone decides for another, then the latter’s autonomy, his freeedom, his free will have been usurped and he is nothing more than a stinkin’ slave and that then refutes the “good of the many” as they have bought into the enslavement by the overseers on the plantation state.

  8. I want to believe that the needs of the many NEVER outweigh the needs of the few. I think the following scenario is a serious challenge to this principle, and I’d like to hear your thoughts on it.
    What happens if many people in a geographic region are infected with a deadly, incurable, contagious disease, such as Ebola? In order to prevent the spread of the disease, a quarantine must be imposed. People who may not be infected will be prevented from leaving the area, in order to prevent a refugee from infecting the rest of the country. The quarantine could effectively condemn thousands of non-infected people to death, by preventing them from leaving the infected area. However, the quarantine could potentially save millions of lives, by preventing a broader outbreak of disease. In this case, I claim that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

    1. Hi Craig. Interesting scenario. As a practical matter I would think that most people who might have been infected would want to be close to relevant medical care. This would preclude running around. It would also incentivize seeing a doctor where you would get a quick yes or no with regard to infection. I suspect that there is little need for a coercive quarantine.

    2. Free will carries with it moral or ethical decisions, but absent freedom to choose, one is just a stinkin’ slave to whomever is his master or overseer. One must recognize, as I’m sure you do, that in a free to choose society there will always be evil dooers but I’d rather freedom to choose than slavery.

  9. I recall hearing a moral dilemma question about two train tracks and you’re standing at the lever that will move the train from one track to the other in this context on the left hand track there are 5 people that you do not know on the right-hand track there’s one person you do not know spocks statement the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
    moral justification would say that you would pick to save the five over the one
    In the second scenario on left hand side of the tracks you have 5 people that you do not know on the right hand of the tracks you have one person that you know well either to spouse close family member very close friend does this change in the scenario and the idea of the individual making the decision would you pull the lever to save your loved one or kill them to save the 5 you do not know?

    1. Post

      This is called the Trolley Problem. It will likely be directly addressed in an upcoming Mental Lever. I’ll leave you in suspense, until then. Please stay tuned.

    2. Dax, how many times has Hollywood presented this very scenario where some bad guys kidnap or threaten a good guy’s loved ones so as to force him to commit an act that will certainly harm many good people?
      I think the worst was the TV show case of some terrorists demanding a part from a scientist to complete a nuclear device to blow up LA or they’d kill his family. What’s the morally correct thing to do? Isn’t it to refuse despite seeing one’s loved ones killed? But what is human nature? What did he do? Yep, he sacrificed LA. But at the last minute of course the good government agents rushed in and saved the day.
      So aren’t you arguing between the MORAL thing to do and the EMOTIONAL thing to do?

  10. The “many” need individual rights, therefore no conflict exists. Forced sacrifice of one to all is anti-social, social suicide, as many social collapses have demonstrated. Even if sacrifice is not forced, it is still a mistake. If one person can be wrong, and “sell” that mistaken belief to all, all are wrong, all suffer.

    Life requires thinking and that starts out personal and becomes more potent with social interaction, e.g., cross pollination of ideas. One person can be the only one with the correct idea on something and that may spread to all, saving all, if the one is not subject to suppression by the all, under the assumption that truth is determined by the majority.

  11. Recce1, the simple truth is that you have no right to use force to impose your opinions, beliefs, prejudices, views or “false religion,” on anyone as that is a violation of Jehovah God’s gift of free will, freedom to choose, to all of us. You seem to be excusing your prejudices so as to justify your unilateral use of force to impose your indoctrination or brainwashing. Worship of “god-politics” is worship of a false god, i.e. it is apostasy.

    1. And I suppose you believe you have the right to reject the Scriptures and bear false witness, is that it? Yet you call yourself a Christian?

      1. Don’t to there as you are in error. I listen to what people say and then decide. False religion is that which is not in the Bible. I bear no “false witness.” God gave us free will, freedom to choose, but he did not anoint you with the right to override my free will or that of anyone unless such freedom is relinquished voluntarily. You don’t seem to recognize that there is a distinction between coming to one’s aid and using force/violence to override one’s free will, freedom to choose. Remember that Lincoln, Wilson and FDR, just to name a few, did not come with “clean hands” to the table of war; they all provoked those with whom they disagreed; they all had selfish motives for desiring wars.

        1. You’re still bearing false witness, false morality, and false superiority. Sadly, I can’t see you as either a Christian or an American.

          Tell me, as the automobile is not in the Bible, is it “false religion” to be required to have a driver’s license, to be required to obey traffic laws, or even to own and operate a auto?

          1. It is clearly not Christian to use of force/violence/aggression and we part company on that as you have stated that you will use force as you see fit without consulting anyone.

            You don’t have any right to dictate to me how I must live and it is a crowning fallacy and immorality of the system of political government. It is cowardly to hire thugs/politicians to enforce your beliefs.

            You are attacking the symptoms and evading the root cause. You will never achieve a solution so long as you are stuck dealing with symptoms. Knock yourself out but it will not achieve a healing.

        2. In response to you cretinous screed below, once again you proven you’re a prevaricator, a libeler. As I wrote below, I can’t see you as either a Christian or an American. You need to seek Jesus Christ and the counsel of the Holy Spirit.

          Just where have I stated that I’ll use force as I see fit without consulting anyone? Dare you try to twist words again? Where have I dictated how you must live? Is it expecting you not to excuse law breaking or living under the protection of those who’ve paid figuratively and literally for it? Back up your claims or admit you’re an unbelieving maleficent hooligan using libertarianism to absolve yourself of responsibility morality.

          But let me put it to you another way as you seem far too obtuse to comprehend what I wrote. I’ll assume you believe you don’t have to deign to obey the law with regard to drivers licenses or car registrations as you haven’t the cojones to answer my question but rather deflect and lie.

          If you believe you’ve the right to disobey traffic laws such as those against drunk-driving and speeding, and murder a member of my family, do I have the Old Testament right to find you and bring you to justice as in Deuteronomy 19:11-13? Yes or no? Don’t equivocate like a caitiff.

          Find Jesus of the New Testament and follow His teachings, not your irreligious imaginations.

          1. You keep throwing out untruths and pejoratives and they only heap coals upon your head. You persist in attacking symptoms and not the root cause of the illness. You have not right to use force to intervene in my life unless requested or you intervene at your risk. You have to come to a conflict with “clean hands” and as I have pointed out, leaders do not have “clean hands” and thus their wars are without moral foundation. It is obvious you have much hate and anger but remember well, that hate is evidence of fear. What have you to fear unless it is that welfare state and the immorality of statism will terminated and you will lose all the welfare payments of all sorts that government has provided by first looting people via taxation. Remember that with the coming of Christ, God stopped sending His men to wreak mass slaughters. I’m sorry for you as you have followed some false religion, some myths. It seems you have been propagandized, indoctrinated and brainwashed with emotions. The first casualties of emotions are reason/logic and morality.

            10 Things to Know about What the Bible Teaches on God and Human Government
            Justin Taylor | June 20, 2019
            Share Tweet Email
            More By Justin
            Hymn of the Day: Come Thou Fount
            Song of the Day: A Virtual Choir Sings “In Christ Alone” A Cappella
            Colson’s Law: The Relationship between Cops and Conscience, Community and Chaos
            Yes, We Really Are Living in the Last Days
            Song of the Day: Be Ye Glad
            The following is adapted from J. Budziszewski, Evangelicals in the Public Square: Four Formative Voices on Political Thought and Action (Baker Academic, 2006).
            1. God is the true sovereign.
            Psalm 22:28
            For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations.
            God ordained all human government for the good of man . . . [God did not ordain anti-Christian, Islam/Muslims, for the “good” of man.]
            Romans 13:1, 3–4
            Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. . . . For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for 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.
            . . . whom God made in his image.
            [Jehovah God gave us the 10 Commandments. When a man violates those commandments he is opposing God. God gave ol’ Beelzebub the boot from Heaven because he thought he could do better. God gave Satan the Earth for a while to see how he could do. The evils, such as men making rules that are opposed to God and forming anti-Christian governments is Satan’s doing and are thus “false religion.” Worship of “god-politics” is apostasy. God did not say following Satan’s wickedness as in anti-Christian political governments as that would make God a liar and we know the God does not lie.]
            Genesis 1:27
            So God created man in his own image,
            in the image of God he created him;
            male and female he created them.
            2. Although God originally chose only one nation, he desires ultimately to draw all nations into the light of his Word.
            Isaiah 49:6
            “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
            to raise up the tribes of Jacob
            and to bring back the preserved of Israel;
            I will make you as a light for the nations,
            that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
            Romans 10:12
            For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
            Revelation 21:23–24
            And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it,
            for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.
            By its light will the nations walk,
            and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.
            [Again, God did not approve of Satan corrupted, manmade constitutions and laws that viciate God’s laws. It is a common error in that people fall for Satan’s twisting of God’s moral directives. Political governments/politicians lie/deceive all the time and God does not teach us to obey such acolytes of Satan.]
            3. God disciplines the nations according to their deeds.
            Jeremiah 18:7–10
            If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
            Jeremiah 5:28–29
            “They have grown fat and sleek.
            They know no bounds in deeds of evil;
            they judge not with justice
            the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper,
            and they do not defend the rights of the needy.
            29 Shall I not punish them for these things?
            declares the Lord,
            and shall I not avenge myself
            on a nation such as this?”
            [When Jesus came along and became the ransom sacrifice for our sins, then God no longer sent in His righteous warriors to kill the apostates. The time will come when Christ will return and put an end to Satan’s dominion of the Earth. God destroyed many as the Old Testament explains but God did not sanction men who are not perfect to do Satan’s biddings and murder each other as if God approved of such wickedness.]
            4. God disciplines the rulers of nations. [God gave Satan control of the Earth for some time until Christ returns and defeats ol’ Beelzebub.]
            Daniel 2:20–21
            Daniel answered and said:
            “Blessed be the name of God forever and ever,
            to whom belong wisdom and might.
            He changes times and seasons;
            he removes kings and sets up kings;
            he gives wisdom to the wise
            and knowledge to those who have understanding.”
            Jeremiah 25:12
            Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, declares the Lord, making the land an everlasting waste.
            Daniel 4:27
            “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you: break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your prosperity.”
            [Again, this is Old Testament stuff that God ended with Jesus, the ransom sacrifice, for our sins. The misunderstanding of not recognizing that God does not destroy people for their wickedness is passed for now, though we will be held accountable for rejection of Jehovah God eventually.]
            5. In general, disobedience to human government is disobedience to God; indeed, government deserves not only obedience but honor.
            Romans 13:1–2, 7
            Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. . . . Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
            [Disobedience to Satanic political government is not disobedience to God. God does not want us to be obedient to Satan. God does not approve of obedience to Satan and his acolytes that operated political governments.]
            6. But there are exceptions: Any governmental edict that contradicts the commands of God must be disobeyed. [Notice how this contradicts those who claim that we must follow manmade political governments/politicians no matter how Satanic they are. I see this duplicity all the time and one fella, Recce1, just doesn’t get it.]
            Acts 5:29
            Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”
            Daniel 3:18
            “But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”
            Exodus 1:17, 20–21
            But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. . . . So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.
            [Does God contradict Himself? No. Political governments are Satan’s collection of acolytes and God does not approve and we ought not to obey the evil one or his minions. If we tarry for long or travel in the land of non-Christian rulers, then we must abide by their rules as we are strangers and thus must submit to taxation/theft (Matthew 17:24-27). The wise men know that this is a warning to get away from such wickedness, but there is no land/nation state that is ruled by Christians. The Bible teaches us that Christian Rulers do not tax their own people!]
            7. The just purposes of human government include
            [a] the commendation of good, [Huh?]
            [b] the punishment of evil,
            [c] the maintenance of peace, and
            [d] the protection of the oppressed.
            [Political governments are staffed by imperfect men and women who are subject to Satan’s temptations and their wickedness is manifest. Political governments oppress and they foment, provoke and cause wars of mass slaughter. A war to make peace is nonsense. If political governments/politicians punished evil then they would self terminate.]
            1 Peter 2:13–14
            Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
            1 Timothy 2:1–2
            First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
            Isaiah 10:1–2
            Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees,
            and the writers who keep writing oppression,
            to turn aside the needy from justice
            and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
            that widows may be their spoil,
            and that they may make the fatherless their prey!
            8. In pursuance of these purposes, God authorizes human government [Just remember that humans are not perfect and subject to Satan’s temptations and thus attempt to subvert God’s laws with corruptions like constitutions and manmade “laws.”]
            [a] to use force on his behalf and [Only if they have “clean hands.” Only if they have not provoked, tormented, caused or fomented others. No leader of whom I am aware in the last 200 years has had “clean hands.”]
            [b] in grave cases even to take life, though never deliberately to take the life of the innocent. [Again, who is so righteous and has “clean hands?” You don’t need a politician or his appointee to decide a case of criminal act. Christian judges can handle such cases without political governments.]
            Romans 13:3–4
            For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for 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. [But the history of the world political governments is terror! Satan’s acolytes/politicians are not approved by God! Satan’s acolytes are not servants of God!]
            Genesis 9:6
            Whoever sheds the blood of man,
            by man shall his blood be shed,
            for God made man in his own image.
            9. Yet human government cannot fully or permanently redress wrong, because it cannot uproot sin from the human heart; this can be done only by the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ. [Political government is Satan’s creation via the corruption of manmade “laws” and constitutions which are the consequence of the imperfectness of man, i.e. because man is sinful and subject to temptations offered by ol’ Beelzebub. This is why we need to abandon/terminate Satanic political government.]
            Jeremiah 17:9
            The heart is deceitful above all things,
            and desperately sick;
            who can understand it?
            Isaiah 64:6
            We have all become like one who is unclean,
            and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
            We all fade like a leaf,
            and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
            Romans 3:22–25
            The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
            10. Moreover, the community of redemption is not the state but the church. No matter how much respect is due to the state, the church is never to be identified with it. [Exactly. So why do people worship “god-politics” when it is not Christian?]
            John 18:33–36
            So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
            Acts 20:28
            Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

        3. Jack, this is in response to your verbose comment on April 11, 2020 – 12:51 am below due to restrictions on posting on this site.

          I won’t resort to verbosity as you do. I’m asking you to put your money (in heaven) where you slanderous mouth is. Prove your accusations. I asked two questions, but you’re too cowardly to answer them. Instead you try to snow me with a lot of Scripture that doesn’t apply to what I wrote, not that I don’t agree with God’s Word as you do.

          Evidently you believe you’ve the right to disobey laws and should be held innocent for the consequences. Is that your answer as to why someone shouldn’t hold you responsible and take action should you in a drunken condition murder their family? What’s your answer to what the Scriptures that I pointed out say? Are you afraid of God’s Word used honestly?

          So ONCE AGAIN, just where have I stated that I’ll use force as I see fit without consulting anyone? Why won’t you DARE answer that? Where have I dictated how you must live? Again, you can’t prove your point, so you resort to circumlocution to deflect from the questions. That’s dishonest for a supposed Christian. So please, don’t use the Scriptures dishonestly.

          1. Licensing is a an artifact of manmade, Satan infected and infested “law.” You have made a logical mistake by treating the symptom of the “disease” and not the root cause, i.e. you posit a false premise. You appear to be forever caged by the emotion of self righteousness, arrogance. Best to let it go.

        4. So requiring a drivers license is satanic? Please prove that with Scripture from the Bible.

          You may think me self righteous and arrogant because I accept Romans 13:1, 3–4 and reject your attempt to dictate how others live, but at least I don’t espouse anarchist criminality like an unbelieving heathen.

          And why are you still such a puerile caitiff? Answer the questions I put to you if you have the cojones to do so.

          Find the Jesus of the Bible.

          1. As you know, stealing is a sin. When licensing is coerced or compelled, then the agency and the bureaucrats therein are effecting a theft of one’s freedom of locomotion, free will, freedom to choose.

            You are in error. I do not and have not dictated how you or anyone must conduct his life; your pejorative thus discredits you.

            I have not espoused any criminality. Again your pejorative only discredits you.

            I know Jesus and I know the wickedness of Satan and his deceivers.

  12. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few when the whole consents.

    For families, the needs of the family outweigh the needs of the father or mother, individually. This is done with consent.

    For communities, people have devoted themselves freely to the protection of others. This can manifest as a nation. Or stay as small as a community.

    It is up to the individual to sacrifice themself for the good of the group. (But the individual consents as a member of the group)

    In star trek spock speaks of this in regards to the whole of the crew. Even the captain as an individual would forgo their exercise of individuality for the good of the group.

    That being said the govt does not exist on consent. And rarely sacrifices for the good of the group but instead sacrifices the group for the good of the individual.

    1. Your comments are consistent with our approach, and with the Lever. Thanks for sharing.

      – Perry Willis

    2. Science officer Spock contradicted the concept of collective superiority at the end of the movie when he said: “The needs of many do not always exceed the need of the one”, referring to the life of Kirk.

      What does “It is up to the individual…” mean? Can the individual choose not to sacrifice? What if some people do not “devote themselves freely to the protection of others”? What if they resolve conflicts of interest in their favor, or the favor of their family, or the favor of a group of 50, not another group of 51?

      What makes a majority superior to a minority? Were 30 million German Nazis superior to 6 million Jews?

      1. The last sentence was a bit disturbing as many Germans did not know. Also, Yehuda Bauer discovered the rather large error of the 4 million claimed deaths at Auschwitz somewhere in the late 1970s or early 1980s and published his findings in 1989 and the plaques in front of Auschwitz had to be destroyed and replaces with the lesser number of “about one and a half million.” What happened to the 2.5 million that suddenly disappeared? Was the “6 million” figure adjusted down?

        Thomas Sowell made a fine observation, the question is not what is best but who decides what is best. God gave us free will, freedom to choose, and one can do as he pleases and must and will be held accountable but no one should use force or violence or aggression to deprive another of his God given gifts of free will, freedom to choose. Do not misunderstand me, God does not approve of crimes such as stealing or murder…and there are punishments for these transgressions.

    3. We learned as kids that “might makes right” is wrong; it is immoral. Sadly, politicians and those who vote actually facilitate “might makes right.”

  13. The group versus the individual is a false dichotomy. All rights are indivdual, and it is individuals that make up the group. Therefore, when one person’s rights are violated, for any reason, everyone’s rights are threatened, in principle. This is what is meant by the term ‘inalienable right”, which is a redundant term. A right is not a right if it’s conditional, open to vote, changeable, temporary. It’s a privilege.

    When a person is imprisoned, it must be for violating rights, to stop further violations, to protect rights.

    When a ruling elite violate the rights of all, for any reason, it nullifies its credibility as a protector. That’s because rights are not a luxury, to be sacrificed, but a necessity for human existence.

    Another way to view rights is to acknowledge the only authentic sovereign is the individual sovereignty of each one of us. A sovereign group is no more real than a group conscience, or a group mind. Therefore, a sovereign nation is a purely political fiction invented to justify (excuse) the sacrifice of one individual to another. When an elite exploits one or many, it denies, in principle, the rights of its individual members, and creates a society of all against all, which is ultimately self-destructive.

  14. Jehovah God gave us free will, freedom to choose. The reality is that politics is violence and political government is the bane of humanity; it is not Christian. And then voting is an act of violence as the voter sanctions the politicians to use force so as to impose the “wills” of the majority upon those who do not share the same. Revelation teaches us that the troika of evil, that wicked consort of politics, commerce and “false religion,” will be destroyed in the end. We would be wise to heed the message and terminate/abandon political government.

  15. Opinions, beliefs, views, prejudices and “false religions” predicated on the assumption that the manmade constitution and “law” justifies the use of political violence/aggression/force are terribly mistaken and worse. God gave us free will, freedom to choose, and did not anoint anyone with the right to override anyone else’s free will, freedom to choose.

    God does not approve of any wickedness, any thievery. While God could use His power to intercede for us when Satan’s acolytes in political government are denying us our free wills, our freedoms to choose, it is God’s right to not intervene and thus permit the evil ones to cause pain and suffering so as to teach us lessons that allowing or sanctioning politicians to use force to impose the majority opinions is wrong. As Ted R. Weiland makes clear, the error of the colonists in framing the US Constitution was in supplanting God with manmade “god-politics” a.k.a. “We The People.”

    BIBLE LAW VS. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: The Christian Perspective Chapter 3 The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH The Preamble

    WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    A New God [god-politics supplanted Jehovah God’s law – JW]

    Constitutionalists often claim the United States Constitution was divinely inspired, and it was – by the new god known as WE THE PEOPLE. Yahweh1 was formally abandoned when the constitutional framers penned the first three words of the Preamble and put their signatures to the social compact. WE THE PEOPLE became the national replacement for Yahweh:
    Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution [“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust”] closed the door judicially to any transcendent god beyond the political order itself. The Constitution is therefore an apostate covenant; a wholly new god is ordained in it, a god acknowledged by the Framers in order to ordain it and ratify it: the American People.2
    The idea that WE THE PEOPLE represents a new god will prove difficult for many readers. Let me defer to the inescapable truths of government and religion as presented by R.J. Rushdoony. Note his second point particularly:

    1. Law is in every culture religious in origin.
    2. The source of law is the god of that society.
    3. In any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion.
    4. No disestablishment of religion as such is possible in any society.
    5. There can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion.3

    Let me elaborate upon these points one at a time.
    Point #1: “Law is in every culture religious in origin.” There is no such thing as non-religious or morally neutral laws. All laws reflect a society’s morality, and are therefore religious in both origin and nature. Because there is no morality outside Yahweh’s morality, as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, any legislation not in agreement with Yahweh’s law is legalized immorality.

Leave a Reply to Jack Worthington Cancel reply

Fields marked with * are required