A Hilarious Objection To Reconstructionism

Yesterday I shared an intriguing conversation with someone about the subject of resurrecting Mosaic Law.  I had expressed interest in becoming a contract lawyer several years from now, and the person speaking with me asked why I wouldn't choose to become a criminal lawyer.  My answer mentioned moral objections to the American criminal justice system and acknowledged that there is no such thing as justice apart from the laws God has revealed, with prison not being included in those laws and therefore being unjust.

At this point, my fellow discusser said that he was "all for the Bible" but explained that it would be so expensive to reinstate Mosaic Law and use its punishments instead of prison.  I explained that a system of fines, damages, floggings, executions, and rare amputations would not generate anywhere near as much of a cost as transporting, incarcerating, and maintaining millions of prisoners and a great multitude of jails and prisons, hiring guards to monitor everything, and running rehabilitation programs in the prisons themselves.  Food, electricity, heating, security--all of this needs to be financially accounted for and adds up to an enormous expense.  Would it be more expensive to incarcerate men and women for years or to flog them quickly and then release them back into society?  Would it be more expensive to execute a kidnapper or rapist or to confine him or her for lengthy amounts of time?  Obviously the modern approach is far more expensive than the alternative presented in the Bible.  The person conversing with me continued to insist that resuming Biblical punishments would be more expensive than the current American prison system.  Honestly, this signified one of the most bizarre and amusing arguments against reconstructionism that I had ever heard.  I recounted facts and emphasized them, but then the discussion shifted to the issue of whether or not Biblical laws are inhumane.  Of course, I refuted that objection as well, although I was still thinking about the previous topic.

This conversation served as yet another example that even when not arguing about moral epistemology one can find plenty of absurd and fallacious arguments against theonomy, with this marking the first time I can recall where expense was the point of objection.  Obviously, the argument against reconstructionism based on economics was not sound or successful.  But I find it hilarious and disturbing that such arguments even exist to begin with.