In this bonus episode, we interview Dr. David VanDrunen. We consider his reply on several points to Pastor Taylor Drummond's critical article that we discuss in episode 17. The title of that article is "Fool's Gold?: A libertarian analysis of VanDrunen's account of state legitimacy" and it examines particular arguments in David VanDrunen's book
Politics After Christendom.
VanDrunen expresses his appreciation for Drummond's article and our episode discussing it, raises questions concerning immoral complicity if the state is taken to be illegitimate, offers some clarification about his (up to this point) not having differentiated monopoly states from non-monopolistic civil governance in his writing, raises questions concerning what sort of consent is normative for the customary legal order's own legitimacy and its authorizing function, raises the question of when abuse or injustice might categorically disqualify one from rightfully possessing authoritative office and its relation to political resistance, and, at the end, responds to our proposal how a fuller, non-aggressionist view of proportionality in the
lex talionis of the Noahic Covenant entails a
conclusive argument in favor of the exclusively "protectionist" purpose of civil governance law.
https://reformedlibertarians.com/bonusCMain Points of Discussion00:00 Introduction
00:09 Episode description
02:15 Prefatory statements
05:37 The question of immoral complicity
16:30 Clarifying matters of complicity
21:13 The question of civil governance vs. monopoly state
27:55 Distinguishing normativity from de facto (non-)conformity to norms
31:00 The question of legitimizing consent
35:56 Distinguishing compliance under duress (by aggression)
40:45 The question of abuse/tyranny and de-legitimization
45:20 The question of a conclusive protectionist-only view
49:32 Remaining uncertainty about Scriptural “regulative principle” for civil governance
52:29 Closing remarks
Additional Resources