The Libertarian Question

In Libertarians in America, published in the Wall Street Journal last Thursday, John Fund praises libertarians and libertarianism in reviewing a book titled Radicals for Capitalism.

I would be interested to know what readers think about this, given the extent to which that movement is identified with irreligion. (None of the five people the book discusses — Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, and the despicable Ayn Rand — were Christians, and the end he refers to the "radical capitalist" founder of Wired, a magazine that promotes Richard Dawkins and his peers.)

The best one can hope for is a patronizing taste for religion for others because it is socially useful. As Fund writes:

Hayek, a supreme rationalist, ended his life believing that "a successful free society will always be in a large measure a tradition-bound society." He even praised religion for encouraging restraint and long-term thinking "under circumstances where everyone believes that God will punish all for the sins of some."

When I read libertarian writers, I usually find their analysis interesting, if not always persuasive, but it often comes with overt attacks on religion or an implicit social darwinism, and sometimes approval of immoral sexual lives. (To head off an objection: I don't mean they simply say "The government should stay out of the bedroom" but that they actually write as if fornication, or adultery for that matter, in either hetero or homosexual form, were a good thing if the partners both agree.)

Every time I've picked up Reason magazine, I'd found some snide and silly remark about religion or religious believers, and sometimes a lot, especially when Christians oppose the exploitation of embryos or otherwise impede their expansive view of what it is moral to buy and sell.

A startling number of right-wing libertarians are pro-choice, for reasons that don't reflect a great deal of moral sense. (See Wikipedia on the views of conservative icon Barry Goldwater: "As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties. In his 1980 Senate reelection campaign, Goldwater won support from religious conservatives but in his final term voted consistently to uphold legalized abortion and, in 1981, gave a speech on how he was angry about the bullying of American politicians by religious organizations, and would 'fight them every step of the way'.")

But it's not a movement that I know much about, and I'd be interested to learn from readers who do. Do, for example, a substantial number marry the economic analysis with a Christian understanding of the moral order and the vocation of government?

Comments

[Judy Warner]

There is a group, Libertarians for Life, whose web site (http://www.l4l.org/) says:

Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong, not a right. Our reasoning is expressly scientific and philosophical rather than either pragmatic or religious, or merely political or emotional. Politically, of course, our perspective is libertarian. Libertarianism's basic principle is that, under justice, each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else -- for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy.

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

(end of quote)

This position is not typical of libertarians and I don't know how many of Libertarians for Life there are. Libertarians are big on doing anything you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. But very few of them want to discuss the status of the fetus as an "anybody."

According to Wikipedia, the current Libertarian Party position on abortion is:

"Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion."

[Mattias Caro]

That's quite a clump to have together—Hayek, Mises, Rand, et al. They're not a monolith, for sure, as that would be treating all the Protestant Reformers of one mind. Rand and Mises have a much stronger regard for wanting to strip things down to the economic question, while Hayek's seminal work, the Road to Serfdom, leads a great deal of intersection with Christian Social Thought especially in his regard for the common good. It's a libertarian rejection of both the common good and the natural law that profoundly separates them for the Christian political tradition.

I'm not sure though what you mean by "vocation to government".

[James A. Altena]

I know of virtually no libertarians who claim to be Christians, or have any use for religion of any sort, and it is not hard to see why. When liberty is defined as freedom from maximal authority and external restraint, as for the libertarian, generally no authority higher than the self can or will be recognized if possible. For the greater the posited external authority, the greater will be the potential limits upon one's actual or potential liberty. And the libertarian outlook is based upon the fundamental premise that the self be the one to determine the extent of one's liberty -- for if someone or something else determines that instead, then one cannot in turn set a limit on that authority and the limits it will set upon one's self.

The libertarian concept of maximally self-determined liberty is fundamentally and irreconcilably at odds with the Christian one of being freed by God from the bondage of sin in order to be the servant of God.

[Judy Warner]

I know people who call themselves libertarians and are Christian. They are libertarian in the sense of being skeptical of government rather than being radical individualists. I would call myself a libertarian using that definition.

[Bill R]

"The libertarian concept of maximally self-determined liberty is fundamentally and irreconcilably at odds with the Christian one of being freed by God from the bondage of sin in order to be the servant of God."

I'm inclined to agree with James, although I once had lunch with prominent libertarian thinker, Douglas Bandow, who is a professing Christian. When I was a young associate in a large Los Angeles law firm, one of my bosses was one of the original editors of Reason magazine, and all of us associates received a subscription (and read the magazine, if we knew what was good for us!) However, this editor hired me knowing that I was a professing Christian and for years he took a kindly interest in knowing when and why a Christian would or would not agree with a libertarian position. There was certainly some overlap in our philosophies, but I always sensed that doctrinaire libertarianism was more compatible with an atheist or agnostic view of life.

[Michael Martin]

Judy said,

"They are libertarian in the sense of being skeptical of government rather than being radical individualists. I would call myself a libertarian using that definition."

If being skeptical of government qualifies one as libertarian, then I must be a libertarian meself.

[Michael Martin]

In response to Judy's "I know people who call themselves libertarians and are Christian. They are libertarian in the sense of being skeptical of government rather than being radical individualists. I would call myself a libertarian using that definition." All I can say is that, if being skeptical of government indicates libertarian sympathies, then I'm a card-carrying libertarian. How could one not be skeptical of government--and don't give me the old tired "God-ordained" leadership argument.

[Michael Martin]

Oops! Sorry for the double post--error notification I should have ignored...

[Ethan Cordray]

>>I know people who call themselves libertarians and are Christian.<<

The same may be said for several of my friends in college, and as Judy indicated, they used that term to indicate suspicion of government rather than a commitment to "maximally self-determined liberty," though in a case or two their personal behavior might have implied a greater sympathy to the latter proposition than they would have admitted.

As with any political term, such as "conservative" or "liberal," it can mean very different things to different people. Heck, early in my college years I called myself a socialist, unconcerned with the anti-Christian thought of the founders of that particular philosophy. One can adopt a term without really subscribing to its philosophical origin.

That said, if libertarianism is to be meaningfully distinguished from simple conservatism, I think it must be on the basis of its fundamental commitment to individual liberty above the concerns of social groups. I agree with James that this position is fundamentally anti-Christian.

[Yaknyeti]

I've often described myself as partly libertarian, although primarily in the "suspicious of government" aspect, since I think it's fine for government to prohibit things like abortion and regulate the excesses of business. However, I took a political views survey online a while back that labeled me a "totalitarian," in the company of figures such as Pope John Paul II and Darth Vader. Hmm...

[Judy Warner]

That said, if libertarianism is to be meaningfully distinguished from simple conservatism, I think it must be on the basis of its fundamental commitment to individual liberty above the concerns of social groups.

I would put it rather (or also) that libertarianism places individual liberty above virtue. Virginia Postrel, who used to edit Reason, is a good example of a pure libertarian. She is thrilled at all the choices we have in our society and not at all concerned about whether these choices are good or bad, whether they promote virtue or vice; I'm not sure she would even recognize such categories.

[GL]

In its pure, unadulterated form, libertarianism is incompatible with Christianity, but we seldom find any ideology in its pure, unadulterated form. Those who call themselves libertarian may in fact be Christian, but they are not then truly libertarian. More than likely, they are in fact a classical liberal.

As to the suspicion of government definition, that to does not, of itself, make one a libertarian. Anarchists are suspicious of government, as are classical liberals. Our founders were very suspicious of government, or more correctly well aware of the nature of man after the fall, and built in checks and balances. They understood, however, that government is in fact ordained by God and good when operating in its proper sphere. (Sorry Michael, if you reject the "God-ordained" argument, your problem is not with anyone here, but with Scripture.) The best check on misuse of government is to follow the principle of subsidiarity, which in fact our founders built into the system via federalism. It has been our drift over the past 200+ years, in fits and starts, away from this principle that has created many of our present problems with government. Suspicious of government (or more correctly of those who govern) is appropriate. Animus toward government and those who govern is not.

[David Myers]

FYI - You can free online access to the above Wall Street Journal article and other subscription sites like mornignstar etc with a netpass from: http://news.congoo.com

Free is better then pay!

[K.T.]

I know of virtually no libertarians who claim to be Christians.

Then you don't know many libertarians... most of the libertarians I know are devout Christians (myself included, a devout Catholic)... perhaps you know "cultural libertarians" and not "political libertarians" - a WORLD of difference.

In its pure, unadulterated form, libertarianism is incompatible with Christianity, but we seldom find any ideology in its pure, unadulterated form.

There is nothing incompatible with libertarianism and Christianity. Libertarianism, in it's "pure, unadulterated form" is nothing more than the belief in the doctrine of free will. Given that I hear about the superiority of "free will" in multiple homilies each year, how are the two incompatible? There are indeed strains of libertarianism that are incompatible with Christianity just as there are forms of conservatism and liberalism incompatible with Christianity. But, dissected to its most basic premise, the two are highly compatible. I would argue, rather, that there is a great degree of misunderstanding - especially here - of libertarianism.

[Judy Warner]

This discussion is rather like the blind man and the elephant. We all seem to have different experiences of libertarians and libertarianism. Some libertarians say that libertarianism is identical to classical liberalism. Others are more anarchist in their leanings. Some use the name to find a justification for their libertinism. And there are many more strains. Charles Murray's libertarianism is nothing like Ayn Rand's, for example, but they both have the label.

One reason for the wide variety of ideologies claiming to be libertarian is that we have moved to such a degree of dependence on government that it is counter-cultural to think that this is not a good thing. People who think like this, who in past years would have been called average Americans, are now on the fringe and need something to call themselves. Then within those people there are shades of belief that previously would have occupied a band on the spectrum of widely held beliefs.

[David Gray]

>I would argue, rather, that there is a great degree of misunderstanding - especially here - of libertarianism.

Not as it is most commonly manifested in this society. Here it most commonly boils down to the night watchman theory of government; government is here to protect you and your stuff. Any other government activity (such as legislating on abortion, sodomy, etc.) is out of line. That doesn't mesh well with Paul's view of government in Romans.

>Libertarianism, in it's "pure, unadulterated form" is nothing more than the belief in the doctrine of free will. Given that I hear about the superiority of "free will" in multiple homilies each year, how are the two incompatible?

Any homily that promotes the idea that untrammeled indulgence and freedom for a fallen will needs help. (I suspect that it probably doesn't do that, if not then it isn't much help to a libertarian argument) Arguing that man has free will doesn't necessarily lead to the view that his free will shouldn't be encumbered.

[K.T.]

And, therein lies what I view to be your challenge... anytime you allow pop culture (i.e. the common manifestation of society) to define an issue, any serious intellectual discussion of that issue becomes problematic. If we were to allow the "common manifestation of society" to define Christianity, we would be in quite a horrific world. Indeed, I would hesitate to let the "common manifestation" of evangelical Christianity define an otherwise noble faith.

Thus, you again, in my view, are misinterpreting the doctrine of free will. I believe you are confusing libertarian with libertine. "Free will" does not mean one participates in untrammeled indulgence. Just because one has the ability (i.e. free will) to engage in a behavior does not mean one should (or does) engage in that behavior. Cultural libertarians would disagree but I would argue these folks are the "common manifestations of society" that you are allowing to define libertarianism (yes, I just butchered the English language in that sentence). I would argue that political libertarians have a better understanding of this distinction than pop culture libertarianism.

And, with due respect, I would argue these individuals have the same surface-level understanding of libertarianism to which you refer. Under libertarian theory, man has the "free will" to do as he pleases. Yet since man is made in the image of God, he will tend towards the good in his actions. His actions are more appropriately encumbered by himself and the Word of God, not the State. As long as ones actions do not impose physical harm on his brother, man and his belief in God's word - not the State - must be the arbiter of such actions. This is where I believe social conservatives who enact their beliefs politically suffer from a lack of intellectual understanding of their religious faith (NB - I consider myself a social conservative, but not in the political realm where I define myself as a political libertarian). Caesar's world and God's world are two distinct realms in my view.

Let me provide two examples. One of my closest friends - let's say Joe - is a homosexual. Joe is adamantly opposed to laws prohibiting gay marriage, sexual conduct, etc. Yet, Joe is not a "practicing" homosexual and believes that the act of homosexuality is an abomination and against the Laws of God. Joe did not choose to be a homosexual. Joe would give much not to be a homosexual. Yet, Joe understands that God created him as a homosexual and he will do his best to adhere to God's Word despite the repeated temptations placed before him. Joe is of the belief, as are most political libertarians, that the State is not the appropriate means to regulate such behavior... only God's Laws can do that. The judgment of government is illegitimate next to the judgment of God, in which we all stand when our day has come. It is far preferable that "free will" (i.e. true libertarianism) be tempered through self-discipline and faith in God and his Word rather than the coercive power of the State.

Another example, I make $60,000/year. Through payroll taxes, the government confiscates about 28%, I give 33% to charity/non-profits, and I keep 39% for me and my family (although that 39% is less given non-payroll taxes). The 33% is given out of "free will," the 28% is taken through force or the coercive power of the State. I would argue the 33% is a far more preferable, efficient, legitimate, and intrinsically valuable use of money. The more the government limits "free will," the less I am able to give to the poor and other philanthropic causes. If I were of a different political stripe, "free will" would be irrelevant and I would rely on others to care (or not care) for my brother through taxes, coercion, or other means.

So, again, until we can agree on a definition of "free will" (which I don't think we will), I think our conversation is moot as we will comment right past each other. However, I maintain that there is a misunderstanding of the true basis of libertariansim and "free will." Free will by no means signifies automatic indulgence in the temptations of this world. I'm simply not a fan of letting the masses define a long-standing political theory - the masses are what has brought us Britney Spears!

So, given your definition of "free will" and libertarianism, yes any homily that addresses the issue would need help... however, I would argue that it is the most Christian of doctrines under the true definition. Indeed, it is the highest manifestation of Christian liberty. And, Christian liberty simply does not mean absolute indulgence in all one is capable of indulging.

[K.T.]

Oops, and I forget to reference Mr. Mills original query... not to be presumptuous or put myself on par with one of the great intellectual minds of the 20th century, but I think my comment's above reflect the gist of Mr. Hayek's quote (which is humorously the signature on my e-mail). I would also agree with his comments on the "snide comments about religion" in Reason. I subscribe to Reason, the American Conservative, and National Review, all which generally offer praise of Mr. Hayek. In the case of Reason, I would argue that many of its authors are "cultural libertarians", although there are a number of "political libertarians" on staff also. However, I too often make similar critical comments (hopefully not snide, though) about "politcally social conservatives" (for the reasons above) despite a undying faith in the Word of God.

[Dave]

Indeed, I would hesitate to let the "common manifestation" of evangelical Christianity define an otherwise noble faith.

Kudos on your ability to completely ignore the basic premise of an ecumenical website.

[Michael Martin]

Dear GL,

When you wrote "Sorry Michael, if you reject the 'God-ordained' argument, your problem is not with anyone here, but with Scripture" you slightly overstepped yourself. Such an argument would not be "with Scripture," but with one's interpretation of Scripture. And there's enough ammo on both sides for a healthy war--a war, might I add, that I am not ready to start! :-)

[DDH]

K.T.

Your views are oddly adamant about certain demarcations, that as of yet have nothing more to back them up as “traditional definitions” over others definitions. You claim an essential unity here:

“Under libertarian theory, man has the "free will" to do as he pleases. Yet since man is made in the image of God, he will tend towards the good in his actions. His actions are more appropriately encumbered by himself and the Word of God, not the State.”

But I fail to see how this is more truly libertarian than the contrary affirmation, where individuals affirm their free-will to do whatever they please. As many others have said above. I would think a fallen man is going to fall back upon himself that to be strongly inclined towards the Word of God.

It seems the reason for the diversity of opinions on what is the libertarian position, comes from a common affirmation of individual liberty. This tends to produce diversity and not unity, and as a result there will be a myriad of diverse views all claiming the same principle but with different conclusions. This is a common symptom of “will-worshipers” and the existentialists. Who all affirm a similar principle but finish with a diversity of ends.

So I am going to agree with James and Ethan who said it well that:

“I think it must be on the basis of its fundamental commitment to individual liberty above the concerns of social groups. I agree with James that this position is fundamentally anti-Christian.”

It doesn’t have to be anti-Christian but it certainly tends towards that position. When you start off affirming autonomy, its hard to every come back to unity. Christianity affirms the latter and I'm not sure how autonomous be like Christ is.

[Judy Warner]

Years ago a passage caught my attention as I was reading my daughter one of the Laura Ingalls Wilder "Little House" books. Laura, the pioneer-daughter heroine, was a teenager attending an Independence Day celebration in the little town near her family's farm. She suddenly realized what freedom meant. It meant (paraphrasing) that no king or government is going to make you be good. It's up to you to make yourself be good.

I found that especially interesting in that the books were probably written by Wilder's daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, who was a noted libertarian.

[GL]

Michael,

Are you denying that government is ordained by God? I believe Romans 13 is fairly explicit about that. And recall, Paul was writing to people who were governed by the Roman emperors, not exactly a "user-friendly" governing authority. I would also note that Christ confirmed that Pilate's authority over Him was given to Pilate from above. John 19. If you have counter arguments from Scripture, I would be most interested in reading them.

[Michael Martin]

Here we go again...

GL,

I am not...BUT, tell me how Satan can offer Jesus the kingdoms of this world. Is Satan's rulership "God-ordained"?

And I don't think Romans 13 is as "explicit" as you assert. St Paul is admonishing Christians to not be radicals, to be peaceful; to not be loudmouth troublemakers, to be longsuffering. In a sense, he is encouraging them to be apolitical. Nevertheless, the people to whom he was speaking soon went to their deaths because they refused to offer a little incense to Caesar.

On the other hand, are you countering St Paul's assertion in Ephesians 6, that our struggle is against the rulers, against the authorities, etc? Or do you interpret this as merely against spiritual beings? And if, indeed, they are spiritual--or not--from whence does their "authority" derive?

I think the answers to such questions are not as easy as you assume.

[GL]

Michael,

Romans 13:1 - "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

I am somewhere between Lutheran and Reformed in my theology and doctrine. I perhaps have a different understanding of "God ordained" than you do. I certain do not equate "God ordained" with "God approved."

However, I will not debate the matter with you.

[Michael Martin]

GL,

Thanks for your post. My point, as far as governments are concerned, is that I come from a position of radical doubt. I trust none of them, even when I agree with them!

I think Romans 13 gets stretched out of shape by people trying to bend it to their own political (wordly) ends. I'm skeptical of them, too.

[Michael Martin]

One more thing. When St Paul writes "for there is no authority except that which God has established," I think he is speaking more of the *office* of authority (king, or what have you) than the *person* in the position. God wants leaders for nations, just as He wants mothers and fathers for families. But God hates evil...

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Under libertarian theory, man has the "free will" to do as he pleases. Yet since man is made in the image of God, he will tend towards the good in his actions. His actions are more appropriately encumbered by himself and the Word of God, not the State.<<

K.T., This optimism of belief in the individual's tendency to goodness is one of the things about libertarianism I see as fundamentally anti-Christian. You will find very few stripes of Christianity that place such confidence in the individual conscience, most preferring an external mediating authority that judges the individual conscience, whether that be the church, tradition, or scripture (or, of course, some combination of these). The New Testament statements concerning the Church as a single body of Christ, and about believers being in fellowship and brotherhood with one another, indicate to me a deep critique of any confidence in the moral capabilities of autonomous individuals. How often Paul writes to churches who have fallen into error because they expected the individual conscience to provide a sufficient moral compass! If it didn't work to preserve the order of the church in Ephesus, why expect it to work to preserve the order of the United States?

I notice that you add "and the Word of God" to the things that ought to encumber the will, but that's a rather risky platform on which to base the order of a country as religiously pluralist and secular as ours. For those who do not acknowledge Biblical or Ecclesial authority, libertarian theory would seem to expect their individual consciences to restrain them from socially corrosive vices. I watch too much television to think that's likely to work out.

The classical conservative alternative is to encourage social structures and institutions that mitigate the tendency toward error possessed by the unregulated conscience, while avoiding as much as possible squelching the ability of individuals to make conscious moral choices. These structures need not be governmental in nature, and in fact as Burke and later Kirk articulate, they will most often be cultural, communal, and local. The family is the fundamental and paradigmatic example.

Government can indeed cause more harm than good, and this truth is the seed from which libertarianism has sprouted. Yet it is only the crudities of modern American political discourse that reduce the possible options to either governmental management or individual autonomy. I would be a lot more comfortable with libertarian arguments if they spoke of encouraging voluntary social and cultural institutions rather than simply unleashing the putatively good individual conscience. But then, as I implied earlier, I'm not sure why they would be called "libertarians" rather than just "conservatives".

[Ethan Cordray]

>>As long as ones actions do not impose physical harm on his brother, man and his belief in God's word - not the State - must be the arbiter of such actions.<<

This limitation to "physical" harm is another thing that bothers me about libertarianism. Is violating a business contract "physical" harm? Is owning someone as a slave "physical" harm? Does soliciting a prostitute cause her "physical" harm?

And why exactly should government only be in the "physical harm" prevention business, anyway? If the government is in fact an agent of Divine Justice, as Paul asserts, then it seems it ought to have an interest in the non-physical aspects of justice as well, including in the economic and cultural spheres.

Now a libertarian answer might try to subsume the economic and cultural within the sphere of the physical, but that move wouldn't preserve the warrant of the usual libertarian objection to governmental interference in economic transactions. Regulating commerce, banning drugs, and imposing anti-discrimination policies might all conceivably be justified under the rubric of preventing physical harm. Really, just about everything done by the current government could be interpreted as such. So why draw the arbitrary line at "physical harm"?

[Bryan Morton]

No one here has bothered to ask, "What is a libertarian?" Very simply put, a libertarian is someone who does not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving personal, social, political or economic goals. Some libertarians are objectivists, some individualists and some are even Christians. (See libertarianChristians.org to learn more.) Christ himself, who had the power to destroy the Universe if He so desired, chose not to use force. Christ chose love over hatred, persuasion over coercion and humility over violence. If we are to be followers of His example, then libertarianism might be as close as we can come to matching a political philosophy with our Christian beliefs. One cannot look at the writings of a few libertarians and make a sweeping generalization about the entire philosophy any more than one can look to the actions of individual Christians for an accurate assessment of Christianity.

[David Gray]

>If we are to be followers of His example, then libertarianism might be as close as we can come to matching a political philosophy with our Christian beliefs.

Then why did he ordain government for the repression of evil?

[Labrialumn]

People are too used to thinking on a one-dimensional graph for politics.

What about first principles?

Randism and the beliefs if the American Founding Fathers are diametrically opposed and capital L Libertarians - and their political quizzes, would make the founders out to be totalitarians, but to modern Americans who haven't had much genuine history or read much beyond school curricula react to what the Founders established - a free republic under God and God's laws, as frighteningly libertarian.

Randism is social Darwinism that inconsistently still believes in the individual. Once it loses the concept of the individual it counter-intuitively becomes fascism.

The Founders were operating on many centuries of Christian political thought: Jesus is the only king of these united State. God has only delegated -some- responsibilities to the civil sphere, which come through the people and the layers of federal governance emulating the clans and tribes of Israel as God established in the Torah.

So we believe in absolute right and wrong and absolute power - But -God- reserves that power to Himself, and civil governance is quite restricted. So Libertarians think we are totalitarians and Statists think we are anarchists, or at least a threat such that several Roman emperors had Christians put to death when they insisted on speaking publically about the faith.

Iaesu ho Kyrios is not compatible with Kaiseros ho kyrios.

[Judy Warner]

Very simply put, a libertarian is someone who does not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving personal, social, political or economic goals.

If it's as simple as all that, please explain why so many libertarians are okay with abortion.

[GL]

Christ himself, who had the power to destroy the Universe if He so desired, chose not to use force. Christ chose love over hatred, persuasion over coercion and humility over violence. If we are to be followers of His example, then libertarianism might be as close as we can come to matching a political philosophy with our Christian beliefs.

He also chose to submit to the human authorities ordained by His Father. He did not rebel; He did not assert His prerogatives; He submitted and He called on His followers to do likewise. See, e.g., Matthew 23:1-3.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Christ himself, who had the power to destroy the Universe if He so desired, chose not to use force.<<

And yet if you look to John's Revelation, you see him using force all over the place. How are we to interpret that?

[Ethan Cordray]

Not to mention the clearing of the temple...

[Bryan Morton]

Very simply put, a libertarian is someone who does not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving personal, social, political or economic goals.

"If it's as simple as all that, please explain why so many libertarians are okay with abortion?"

Because they too a fallible humans and sometimes contradict their own beliefs to fit their personal desires.

>If we are to be followers of His example, then libertarianism might be as close as we can come to matching a political philosophy with our Christian beliefs.

"Then why did he ordain government for the repression of evil?" There are legitimate and illegitimate forms of government as could easily be pointed out with examples such as PolPot's and Hitler's governments. libertarianism is not specifically anti-government. However, it does stand against the individuals who would use the power of government for illegitimate ends. Those who believe that Romans 13 gives those in government a blank check to do whatever they please haven't bothered to justify Romans 13 with something as close as Romans 12, or as far as 1 Samuel 8. The people in government are men, fallible humans with political power, nothing more.

"He also chose to submit to the human authorities ordained by His Father. He did not rebel; He did not assert His prerogatives; He submitted and He called on His followers to do likewise."

Just as we are to do as well. If we are to be Martyred, as many were in the Bible, we should insure that we are martyred for our faith. However, you should remember that Christ came to die on that cross. It was His purpose. If the Roman government hadn't murdered Him, He still would have found a way to fulfill the prophesies and His purpose. In being a picture of Christ, (as closely as I can come as a fallible human), I can submit to all forms of repression but I am not so foolish as to believe I could die for someone else's sins. That was His purpose, not mine.

"Not to mention the clearing of the temple..."

Ah yes, where Christ whipped the money changers with a piece of yarn. Ferocious, wasn't it?

Why do you look to sites like these for guidance, when God has given you everything you need to know? Do not put your faith in men. The writer of this blog has good intentions, but he is just a man, just like me, just like your Pastor and your parents, your President, your congressman, your friends and yourself. Read your Bible. Get one that has those cool reference thingies down the middle and follow those to compare passages to one another. Don't you think God's word is worth the effort? The Bible NEVER contradicts itself. Check context and study translations. The answers are there...

Not here.

[David Gray]

>Don't you think God's word is worth the effort?

It certainly is. It just doesn't leave libertarianism, as practiced in the US politically, as an option. It is all well and good to say that the Libertarian Party doesn't represent true libertarianism or that its most publicly visible spokesmen don't represent libertarianism but it basically means you have a private philosophy that is not publicly recognized that you call libertarian. There is no utility in such an approach. It isn't entirely dissimilar to the old argument that communism is fine because it has never been tried. The Soviet Union really wasn't communist. Nor was China or the CPUSA. Etc. There is no publicly visible wing of the Libertarian Party which is resolved to stop abortion or retain the historic laws against sodomy.

[eric schansberg]

Reading through the posts, a number of things come to mind:
1.) There are many Libs who have various allergies to religion. At least within its public face, the latter seem to have disproportionate influence. This would seem to be due to potential implications of its philosophical approach and the resurgence of Lib led by atheists like Rand.
2.) That said, there are many committed Christians who are Lib. Is it proportionate to the population? I'm not sure. In any case, the question is not about numbers but validity.
3.) For those who want to read more about Christianity and Libertarianism, I'd recommend Doug Bandow's work-- or (to be immodest) my own.
My book, Turn Neither to the Right nor to the Left, makes a case for a Christian Libertarian approach to policy advocacy. For a shorter treatment (academic journal article) of the same topic, see: http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2002_fall/schansberg.html.
4.) Along those lines, although the Acton Institute does not use the Lib label, its conclusions are largely Lib-- and its efforts in "Economic Personalism" could be considered a Christianized (philosophical) version of Lib.
5.) From what I understand, about one-third of Libs are pro-life. Of course, Lib philosophy is completely consistent with either position-- depending on one's assumption about when life begins.
6.) Because the Lib platform is decided my majority rule (of delegates), one must take care in interpreting its connection to Lib philosophy or practice.

D. Eric Schansberg
Professor of Economics
Indiana University (New Albany)

[GL]

Very simply put, a libertarian is someone who does not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving personal, social, political or economic goals.

That is what government does -- properly only the last three of your four goals. And that is precisely the reason for which government was ordained by God. Look at the Old Testament for the areas of life which God's law regulated and which He commanded the ancient rulers of Israel to enforce: social relationships (e.g., regulations and restrictions on sexual and family relationships) , political (e.g., appointment of rulers and judges, division of the land into political districts -- tribal allotments), and warfare), and economic relations between the children of Israel and between them and Gentiles (regulations on slavery, charging of interest, forgiveness of debts, use of honest measures, ownership of property, restrictions on alienation of property, etc.) If libertarians are against the use of all force to acheive any of those goals, then libertarians are against all government. If they are against all government, then they libertarians are opposing God's will.

As many have noted, few actual, self-proclaimed "libertarians" adhere to a pure, unadulterated libertarianism. David is absolutely correct is observing that calling something by a name does not make it the thing which that name properly defines. I can call an orange a banana, but calling it a banana does not make it one, it is still an orange. Calling a philosophy "libertarian" which is not does not make it "libertarian." Frankly, I believe most self-proclaimed libertarians, even if not truly libertarian, still seek to resist the agency which God ordained. Those who don't are really classical liberals, a philosophy that recognizes a proper role for government and seeks to organize it in ways to restrain its abuse by fallen men.

Adam and Eve are our best examples of pure, unadulterated libertarianism, declaring, in effect, "Not Your will, but mine be done." Libertarians say this to God when they seek to deny to government those roles which God has ordained for it. That is the sum total of libertarian philosophy boiled down to its essence.

[eric schansberg]

responding to GL's comments...
-I don't think I'd use the italicized sentence as a synopsis of Lib. In any case, you're overlooking the key phrase "initiation of".
-The reference to OT governance is not especially helpful in that it fails to wrestle with whether those "govt interventions" apply to the church or the nation in today's context. If one runs with the latter, you end up at theonomy or incoherence.
-There are certainly variations within Lib. Most, but not all, find a minimal role for govt that is synonymous with Romans 13.
-What did Adam and Eve do to make them Libs? Perhaps one should label them Libertine instead. In fact, God's choices here are more instructive. Why didn't He construct an electrical fence around the tree-- to try to prevent them from sinning? The level of access that God allowed A&E to engage in sin must be disconcerting to a social conservative.

[Bryan Morton]

It certainly is. It just doesn't leave libertarianism, as practiced in the US politically, as an option. It is all well and good to say that the Libertarian Party doesn't represent true libertarianism or that its most publicly visible spokesmen don't represent libertarianism but it basically means you have a private philosophy that is not publicly recognized that you call libertarian. There is no utility in such an approach. It isn't entirely dissimilar to the old argument that communism is fine because it has never been tried. The Soviet Union really wasn't communist. Nor was China or the CPUSA. Etc. There is no publicly visible wing of the Libertarian Party which is resolved to stop abortion or retain the historic laws against sodomy. The Republican and Democrat Parties in the US both espouse varying degrees of Fascism and Socialism, but you probably wouldn't say that people who believe in genuine republican and democratic forms of government have a private philosophy that is not publicly recognized. My perspective on libertarianism isn't one which I hold all by my little lonesome, nor has it come to me by a perfunctory look at history and politics. One of the downsides to this type of forum is the expectation that you can glean, from a few paragraphs, what it has taken others years of study to obtain. An example; Because Ethan misunderstands a seemingly minor nuance of libertarian thought, he allows himself elbow room to expound on his mistake.

">>As long as ones actions do not impose physical harm on his brother, man and his belief in God's word - not the State - must be the arbiter of such actions.<<

This limitation to "physical" harm is another thing that bothers me about libertarianism. Is violating a business contract "physical" harm? Is owning someone as a slave "physical" harm? Does soliciting a prostitute cause her "physical" harm?

And why exactly should government only be in the "physical harm" prevention business, anyway? If the government is in fact an agent of Divine Justice, as Paul asserts, then it seems it ought to have an interest in the non-physical aspects of justice as well, including in the economic and cultural spheres.

Now a libertarian answer might try to subsume the economic and cultural within the sphere of the physical, but that move wouldn't preserve the warrant of the usual libertarian objection to governmental interference in economic transactions. Regulating commerce, banning drugs, and imposing anti-discrimination policies might all conceivably be justified under the rubric of preventing physical harm. Really, just about everything done by the current government could be interpreted as such. So why draw the arbitrary line at "physical harm"?"

From the libertarian position, the only legitimate function of civil government, (the State), is the reactive defense of each individual's rights of life, liberty and property, and it only retains that legitimacy by performing that function without violating those three rights in the process. What is seemingly a small difference has huge implications, because, as you see their legitimate function is limited to the defense of RIGHTS. The actual protection of life, liberty and property falls outside of the boundaries of their legitimate functions. The difference is defense against the actions of others, not the defense against situations or ones own stupidity or immorality. Most of the violations of the rights to life, liberty and property can be shoehorned into one or more of four basic categories; murder, theft, slavery and fraud. These easily fall into the scope of Ethan's argument.

Few people stop to ponder whether or not the general term we for government might have a broader definition which satisfies the Biblical text without the contradictions which occur when we narrowly define it the mean "the State." Biblical government refers to the authorities ordained by God, the tribes and their hierarchy. In modern terms, family government and church government. Whereas, the State, based on arbitrarily drawn geographical borders, more closely resembles the kingdoms which Satan offered to Christ and which He refused. Consider for a moment the actions of the state; The printing of fiat currency, usurious taxation, wealth redistribution, war, eminent domain..., just to skim the surface. If evil is the enemy and we are to fight it, why are the individuals who comprise the state given an exemption? A reading of Bastiat's, "The Law," http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html , wouldn't hurt for a deeper understanding of the evils of the state.

[GL]

Eric,

You certainly do raise some interesting questions and I do not deny their merit. However, I believe you seek to prove to much with the following assertion:

What did Adam and Eve do to make them Libs? Perhaps one should label them Libertine instead. In fact, God's choices here are more instructive. Why didn't He construct an electrical fence around the tree-- to try to prevent them from sinning? The level of access that God allowed A&E to engage in sin must be disconcerting to a social conservative.

What God did do was call such action sin, punished the three parties involved severely and expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden, denying them access to the Tree of Life. That He does not directly always positively prevent our breaching His laws (like He did in preventing Adam and Eve from eating from the Tree of Life) does not mean that He permits it. He has promised, in fact, to judge us all based on what we have done and not done. We are free to sin, but we are not free of the consequences of our sin, which are both natural and Divine, so it is misleading to say that God permits us to sin. Likewise, government seldom can prevent crimes, but it can punishment. In that sense, it affords as much freedom as does God.

Further, He later laid down laws as to human conduct and placed in the hands of humans to right and the responsibility of enforcing those laws, including laws against incest and sodomy. Assuming, arguendo, that their is some distinction to be made between whether ancient Israel did so as the forerunner of the Church or of civil government (it is difficult to establish this as ancient Israel was, at least during its early history, a theocracy with the two functions subsumed under one authority), we still have Romans 13 in which Paul instructs believers that we are to submit to the government, which in turn is established by God. If you are correct, then perhaps we need to go back to an established Church which can enforce the moral code through canon law. Lacking such, it seems that the government has a proper role in this regard. Are you of the opinion that government has no such role? I assume that you believe that government may enforce the parts of the moral code that ban murder and theft. If so, where do you draw the line on where government should act and why (e.g., is it a matter of lack of authority or of prudence or some other reason)?

(You will likely fine that in many cases you and I would agree on where government should refrain from acting, but that we disagree as to why. In past threads, I have expressed my views on the limited wisdom (but not authority) of government imposing certain aspects of the moral code, citing Aquinas for my reasoning.)

Both major parties are semi-libertarian (at least as to their rhetoric, but not necessarily their actual governance). The Democrats are libertarian on social issues, but not economics; the Republicans are libertarian as to economics, but not on social issues. Where do you fall on how much government regulation is called for in those two spheres?

[Douglas]

GL,

I don't necessarily disagree with your position, but your comments beg a lot of questions. To take just one, the US was founded by men who rebelled against their lawful king, and over far less than what we put up with these days. Given the circumstances of the country's founding, how could the US government ever claim Divine legitimacy?

And I'd actually take your point a bit further: democracy, much less libertarianism, appears to me as wholly incompatible with Christianity.

As far as an "ideal" government, I'd argue for what existed in Israel prior to the anointing of Saul.

[GL]

Douglas,

The founders almost certainly sinned in rebelling against England. I have addressed my views on this in a thread regarding just war. The government they established, however, is ordained by God, as *all* government is so ordained. (King David set a much better example in refusing to rebel against Saul and only exercising the prerogatives of king after Saul, the Lord's anointed, had died.) Not all government need be obeyed in all circumstances (e.g., see Peter's refusal to stop proclaiming Christ), but we are called to submit to it (i.e., to obey or, when unable to do so, to accept the punishment for our Divinely required disobedience, as did Peter when he was crucified in Rome).

I honestly don't have an opinion on what is the ideal form of government short of the one our Lord will head. All others are deeply flawed. I believe our founders did a pretty good job, but it didn't stick and was far from perfect in the first instance. Our present government is far removed from what they created and invisioned. Obviously, God was not pleased with the people of Israel rejecting His judges (which He called a rejection of Him), but it is He, nonetheless, who gave them kings, handpicking, as it were, who those kings would be.

[Ethan Cordray]

I'm glad that we have multiple defenders of libertarianism on this thread, because I get the feeling that any single one would not really present a full picture of the subject.

Bryan, I think you're right that the "rights" criterion is a better measure than physical harm. Thanks for the answer.

However, I don't think you've answered my objection to your own point about the licitness of initiating violence. Just exactly how does making a scourge and beating people with it not count as "initiating violence"? And as GL says as well, what does the State do, besides initiate violence?

[Bryan Morton]

"Just exactly how does making a scourge and beating people with it not count as "initiating violence"? And as GL says as well, what does the State do, besides initiate violence?"

Manufacturing and owning scourges is OK. The line is crossed when that scourge is used as a coercive measure against someone who has not himself already violated the rights of life, liberty or property of another. This also partially defines reactive government over proactive.

[Judy Warner]

The founders almost certainly sinned in rebelling against England.

The Founders were quite concerned to justify their action of declaring independence, not only in the sight of mankind but also in the sight of God. The first paragraph of the Declaration states:

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the cauess which impel them to the separation."

In other words, they believed that they were justified under God's laws to declare independence.

They then continue:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights....That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

That is, they believed the British government violated rights which were given to mankind by God and that justified their rebellion.

The last paragraph appeals to God for approval of their actions:

"We, therefor, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.... And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

[Douglas]

>>>Do, for example, a substantial number marry the economic analysis with a Christian understanding of the moral order and the vocation of government?<<<

The bedrock principle is non-aggression: Rand's succinct statement was that it is immoral to initiate force or fraud against another human being. It follows that a government that does anything other than protect one's right to be free of force or fraud is immoral, uneconomic and unjust.

So far as it goes, the NAP is a pretty good rule of thumb. I sometimes joke that my ideal constitution would have only two sentences: "If it ain't broke don't fix it," and "Mind your own business."

If you place vice crimes such as sodomy and prostitution within the sphere of activities that damage the social order in which all individuals have a stake, then I believe you can reconcile libertarianism and Christianity pretty easily. I'd also make the point that sexual license should be abhorred by any principled libertarian. A stable and traditional three-generation family hardly needs a government for anything. By contrast, a sexual free-for-all gives us single moms, working moms, pensions, lawyers, psychologists, daycare centers, and on and on, all of which generate democratic pressure for government services. The libertarian would counter, correctly in my opinion, that vice laws do nothing to stop the targetted activity and have so many harmful unintended consequences that the better course would be simply to allow people to discriminate against those of whom they do not approve.

In yet another camp are people like Hans-Herman Hoppe, who argue for anarchy as organic society, with people freely organizing themselves under whatever charter they desire. Thus, if a group of fascists want to have their corner of the earth in which to hold parades, fine. If a group of hippies want to build a hemp-weaving commune, fine. (These are the Orthodox Jewish and Amish models, btw. What you SHOULD NOT be able to do is coerce other people into paying for it.

However, most libertarians are really just libertines. They are also intellectually dishonest, since they will grudgingly admit that it is government, not libertarianism, that protects people's "rights" to engage in pathological behavior. Without government to enforce a bunch of theoretical rights, unassimilable ethnic minorities and sexual deviants would have a tough time finding decent housing or gainful employment.

[eric schansberg]

GL, as an aside: it's interesting that you point to incest and sodomy. Why not all forms of extra-marital sex?

To your primary points: A Christian Libertarian will call sin a sin-- whether in Gen 3 or otherwise. In this sense, John 8 seems instructive-- Christ neither condoned the sin nor chucked rocks. More broadly, we all agree that chucking rocks at all sins is a non-starter. But this begs the question of which sins deserve the govt's rocks or our rocks or...

Where to draw the line? You can read about it, at length, in my journal article and book! One key principle: It becomes easier to invoke govt as a means to an end when one party imposes larger and more direct costs on others.

Finally, as a generalization of some (but quite limited) usefulness: I would agree that Dems tend to be socially Libertarian and Reps tend to be economically Libertarian. In practice, there are many types of Dems and Reps-- and their deviation from Lib (and Biblical) principles, even in these realms, is usually significant.

[David Gray]

>From the libertarian position, the only legitimate function of civil government, (the State), is the reactive defense of each individual's rights of life, liberty and property, and it only retains that legitimacy by performing that function without violating those three rights in the process.

Which is at odds with God's position on the function of civil authority.

>Biblical government refers to the authorities ordained by God, the tribes and their hierarchy.

Paul was writing in the context of the Roman Empire, not a tribal government.

[David Gray]

>In other words, they believed that they were justified under God's laws to declare independence.

Obviously. The more interesting question is whether they were correct in their belief.

[eric schansberg]

>>>>From the libertarian position, the only legitimate function of civil government, (the State), is the reactive defense of each individual's rights of life, liberty and property, and it only retains that legitimacy by performing that function without violating those three rights in the process.

>>Which is at odds with God's position on the function of civil authority.

Can you be more precise &/or provide some examples?

[GL]

Eric,

I would love to read your article and book. Please afford us with a cite and or a link to where we can get a copy.

It is funny that you should mention "all forms of extra-marital sex" as at one time there were in fact civil and/or criminal penalties for a variety of sexual activity which is now unregulated by government: pre-marital sex, adultery, sodomy (with a wide variety of definitions including both homosexual and heterosexual practices), incest, and even sexual intercourse in any position other than the missionary position (the last of which laws were apparently designed to maximize the potential of procreation) all being examples. We now widely accept the fact that such matters "are none of the government's business" under the mantra of "keeping government out of my bedroom." Our ancestors apparently thought otherwise.

In such matters, we undoubtedly live in the most libertarian society in centuries or even millennia. We are all in favor of government staying out of such matters up to the point of where past laws prohibit what we now practice. The only difference between folks is how far beyond their own practices they want to extend the concept of the "right to privacy." It would make an interesting survey to find out how many folks would agree to restore restrictions that once existed on there actual sexual practices if it meant also restricting practices which they find sinful and, alternatively, how many would agree to ban government restrictions of sexual practices which they find sinful if that were necessary to retain such a ban on restrictions as to sexual activities which they practice.

[David Gray]

>Can you be more precise &/or provide some examples?

Let every person pbe 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. 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, tan avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer

[eric schansberg]

Thanks for your interest and encouraging words!

A link to the article: http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2002_fall/schansberg.html

The book is available through Amazon, Laissez-Faire books, or writing to me directly ([email protected]).

[eric schansberg]

>>>>Can you be more precise &/or provide some examples?

>>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. 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.

Right...so which wrongdoers? Eating too much pie, rape, worshipping Buddha, failing to be charitable, yelling at my kids, etc.

When should Christians advocate the use of government as a means to godly ends?

[Douglas]

>>In such matters, we undoubtedly live in the most libertarian society in centuries or even millennia.<<

That is because secular democratic government knows that sexual licentiousness is no threat to its existence. Indeed, sexual license is democratic government's ally.

That being said, I'm not too comfortable with a world where police can kick down the door to see if my wife and I are performing sexual intercourse in the government's approved position.

[GL]

Eric,

If you are encouraged by my observations, that makes only one of us. I believe that what we lost by our loss of laws related to sexual matters exceeds by a wide margin what we have gained. I indeed believe that some of the laws needed to be repealed, but not becaue I believe in libertarianism, but because I believe that they had come, in some cases, to be held is derision by large sections of the population and were breeding a contempt for laws and government in general. The laws are now mostly gone, but the contempt lingers on, more virulent than ever.

[GL]

That being said, I'm not too comfortable with a world where police can kick down the door to see if my wife and I are performing sexual intercourse in the government's approved position.

Nor do I Douglas, but such laws were at one time on the book. Would you agree to their restoration were it necessary in order to recriminalize homosexual sodomy? Or, put the other way, would you agree to decriminalize sodomy (which is now the case) were that necessay to keep government from defining approved positions for intercourse. It is a continuum and I believe I could in fact find a place to defend a break between those two extremes, but it appears that over the course of a century, we are stuck with one extreme or the other.

[T. Chan]

That is because secular democratic government knows that sexual licentiousness is no threat to its existence.

'believes wrongly' would be more appropriate

[Douglas]

T. Chan,

I disagree. As I noted, a stable and traditional three-generation family hardly needs a government for anything. Sexual license, on the other hand, creates democratic pressure for all sorts of government services.

When you think about it, the homosexual with his/her short time preference and no competing loyalties to creed or kin is the government's ideal citizen. This is why I expect in my lifetime that the government will make it illegal to discriminate against them.

[Judy Warner]

That is an ideal citizen for a dictatorship, but why do you say it's ideal for a democracy to have citizens with no other loyalties?

[Douglas]

Judy,

Because a strong, centralized state is necessary to extract wealth from net tax producers and distribute it among the majority, who are net tax consumers.

Democracy is just replacing one dictator with a million dictators.

[Douglas]

GL,

>>The government they established, however, is ordained by God, as *all* government is so ordained.<<

The more I think about this the emptier it sounds. The communists, let's say, can overthrow the Kaiser, and then claim their government is ordained by God. Then the nazis can overthrow the communists, and claim their government is ordained by God, and on and on.

[Judy Warner]

Do you mean by democracy a direct democracy, or does your comment apply also to a democratic republic? The United States was founded with the need for private virtue in mind, and at a time when almost all people were bound by tight networks of loyalties and mediating institutions. Our constitution was meant to prevent the government from being a direct democracy and from becoming a strong centralized state. Insofar as we have violated the constitution we have become less free, and we are very far from constitutional government now.

Those who prefer more centralized government and less of the constitution (that would be, for the most part, Democrats) do seem to be people with short time frames -- childless and single people -- and those with fewer competing loyalties. Also those who benefit from the goodies they can vote themselves. So I would agree with some of your statement.

However, to say "Democracy is just replacing one dictator with a million dictators" makes no sense to me. Government by elected representatives may not be a perfect system, but it is not the same thing as a dictatorship.

[Douglas]

Judy,

There is no substantive difference between a dictator who condemns my land to give it to his developer buddies and a democratically elected county commission that does the same thing. In fact, I'd argue the democratic version is far more insidious because it has come to enjoy an imprimatur of being "the will of the people." Dissent in such instances is no longer seen as courageous protest against a single power-mad lunatic, it's thwarting the very will of the people themselves!

>>Do you mean by democracy a direct democracy, or does your comment apply also to a democratic republic? The United States was founded with the need for private virtue in mind, and at a time when almost all people were bound by tight networks of loyalties and mediating institutions.<<

If you extend the franchise to net tax consumers as well as net tax producers, I don't think it matters ultimately whether you are a republic or if you govern by referenda. In fact, representative democracy is what enables special interest-voting by representatives.

When you describe a democratic republic in the terms you do, what you really mean is an antebellum place where educated Anglos debate the rule of law and vote on things like whether to call up the (non-standing) army or what to do about the Barbary pirates. Those days are gone forever, and we now stamp a process called "democracy" on wholly irreconcilable points of view. This is a charade that cannot last, in my opinion.

[eric schansberg]

GL, assuming that your example indicates your strength of preferences within the political sphere: On what basis would you start with laws against homosexual sodomy within laws pertaining to sexual ethics? Why not adultery or pre-marital sex?

[Bryan Morton]

Hans Hermann Hoppe has an excellent book, "Democracy, the god that Failed." The founders of the US were not big fans of democracy either, which is whi the word "democracy" is not found in the Articles of Confederation, The declaration of Independence or the US Constitution, not even once. Ben Franklin is quoted as saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." It really is nothing more than morality by popular demand. Whatever 50% + 1 of the voters believe is right is right. Technically, the US was meant to be a Constitutional Republic where the actions of the individuals in government were to be strictly limited to those few and enumerated in their job description, (the US Constitution.) There's little difference between representative and pure democracy except that with the former bribes in the form of gifts, campaign contributions and votes are required in order to legalize violating your neighbors' rights. Federic Bastiat makes an interesting argument for universal suffrage which demonstrates the short comings of democracy quite well. One of the main reasons I became libertarian was my understanding that all of us fall short of the glory of God. All of us inherit our human sinful nature and are prone to selfishness. That "all" includes elected officials. Those individuals do not magically become more moral, ethical or wise simply because they won a majority in an election. I would, in fact say that the things one must be willing to do to win public office would cause me even more concern for that individual's morals and ethics. I personally know a couple of libertarian Christians who recently ran for public office. They both lost, I suspect because they were not willing to compromise their principles enough to gain the popular vote.

If the political philosophy of libertarianism doesn't come close enough to Christianity, then what would you recommend instead? Personally, I still believe it's better than any of the other choices.

1 Samuel 8

And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel.

Now the name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba.

His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah;

and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations."

But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us " And Samuel prayed to the LORD.

The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.

"Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day--in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods--so they are doing to you also.

"Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them."

So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.

He said, "This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.

"He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.

"He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.

"He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.

"He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.

"He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.

"He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.

"Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day."

Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, "No, but there shall be a king over us,

that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles."

Now after Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the LORD'S hearing.

The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to their voice and appoint them a king." So Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Go every man to his city."

Just for kicks, try these just to exercise the gray matter;

http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp

http://www.politopia.com/quiz_index.php3

[GL]

The more I think about this the emptier it sounds. The communists, let's say, can overthrow the Kaiser, and then claim their government is ordained by God. Then the nazis can overthrow the communists, and claim their government is ordained by God, and on and on.

Douglas,

It bothers me as well. The alternative, i.e., that authorities exist which God did not ordain, bothers me even more.

On what basis would you start with laws against homosexual sodomy within laws pertaining to sexual ethics? Why not adultery or pre-marital sex?

I have not given this a great deal of thought. Adultery probably has done more damage to the family and its members (the innocent spouses and children) than non-adulterous homosexuality behavior, so I do not know how I could defend laws against the latter without demanding laws against the former. The real problem I see in not necessarily that adultery and sodomy have been decriminalized, but that they are treated as of no relevancy in legal cases in which they are involved. For example, even if one does not believe adulterers should be sent to prison, does that mean that courts should not consider it in divorce cases in deciding issues related to property division, maintenance, and child custody? I don't think so. Again, even if one does not believe that homosexuality should be a crime, does that mean that courts should permit same-sex couples to adopt children? As I said earlier, we have a tendency to demand the extreme. As a society, we seem to go rather easilty from adulterers and those practicing homosexual sex are not to be treated as criminals to they must be treated as if they have done nothing harmful or even that they have done something good. It is in fact possible to treat certain conduct unfavorably in the law without treating it criminally. We, in fact, do it all the time in areas such as torts and contracts. Why can we not do it in the area of sexuality? But -- and here is the rub for a professed libertarian -- can you condone such civil penalties and remain true to libertarian principles?

I will now ask you a few questions:

1. Should courts punish (through property division and maintenance awards) adulterers in cases of divorce?
2. Should courts recognize claims for alienation of affection?
3. Should same-sex couples be permitted to adopt children?
4. Should courts consider the sexual-preferences of divorced parents in place custody?
5. Should same-sex couples be permitted to marry?

[GL]

All, pardon my bad grammar. I don't proof and I change my train of thought as I type, without making sure it is all still grammatical. I think you all know what I am trying to say, so I won't retype my fractured blog.

[James A. Altena]

"Libertarianism, in its 'pure, unadulterated form' is nothing more than the belief in the doctrine of free will."

According to such a vacuous criterion, even fascists and communists qualify as libertarians. The distinctive core of libertarianism is not belief in the doctrine of free will, which is shared by virtually everyone except a few philosophers, but rather how (maximally) few legal restrictions should be put on any individual's exercise of his own free will by the state.

Michael Martin's suspicion of rulers and office/officeholder dichotomy is equally devoid of substantive content. I suspect there isn't a soul here that isn't suspicious of government and politicians, and doesn't observe the distinction of saluting the uniform and not the wearer. But this ignores a crucial point -- if we should be and are suspicious of those, we should likewise be equally (or more) suspicious of ourselves. We too are just as fallen, and our suspicion of government and officials as a justification for personal liberty may be often simply nothing more than a cloak for a desire to pursue our own selfishness and pride. That is why God has instituted government among men, and ordained obedience to it so long as it does not contravene obedience to His commands, even though the holders of office likewise be fallen and even corrupt.

The same is true in response to Bryan as well. And his complaint that no definition of libertarianism was offered shows he did not bother to read either my post or those of Ethan very closely.

Unless it was meant ironically (perhaps it was), the person who suggested the situation before Saul as the ideal form of government needs to go back and re-read the book of Judges, particularly chapters 19-21, for what resulted when "there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."

Judy is quite right that Douglas' claim that democracy is (or can also be) "dictatorship" makes no sense, and is simply playing games with words. Under a dictator, there is no consultation or say for the ruled. Under a democracy, there is provision for all to be consulted and have a say, even if in the end a majority gets its way and a minority does not. The fact that a majority may commit an injustice does not ipso facto make it a dictatorship. And unlike a dictatorship, the majority and minority are not of fixed composition from day to day.

Douglas' complaint here is really a disguised version of the impossible but nonetheless widespread notion that a democracy or just government is one under which "I always get what I want." (Or, magically, that everybody somehow gets what he or she wants without that conflicting with what anybody else wants and gets.) A democracy or a republic does not guarantee that anyone gets what he wants; it only provides a means and venue for each participant to have a say.

Dear Eric,

You offer by far the most substantial and thoughtful defense here for a possible Christian libertarianism. You (and I believe someone else) ask why Christianity and libertarianism should be fundamentally incompatable, and did not find David Gray's quotation from Romans convincing. (I agree with what I presume David's understanding of the quoted passage to be, but do not find a bare quotation without exegesis convincing.) Allow me to take a shot at it.

I refer you back to the closing sentence of my first post:

"The libertarian concept of maximally self-determined liberty is fundamentally and irreconcilably at odds with the Christian one of being freed by God from the bondage of sin in order to be the servant of God."

This is the argument in a nutshell. As a social-poltical philosophy, libertarianism advocates maxximum individual freedom and self-determination and minimal government regulation. The basic principle is that government intervention is justified only as a reactive (not proactive) measure to prevent one citizen from using force (or undue force) against another citizen. Particular disagreements among libertarians are due to differing notions of what constitutes "force" and what correspondingly are "rights" and differing notions of who are "persons" (in a legal/political sense of autonomous individuals competent to govern their own affairs rationally) who have "rights."

This is fundamentally at odds with Christiniaty in the following ways:

1) As Christians, we recognize that, theologically speaking, we have no rights whatsoever -- not to life, liberty, property, or anything else. We forfeited them all with the Fall, and derserve only death and damnation. Such "rights" as we suppose exist are only provisional makeshifts of the temporal social-political order that God is pleased to allow us to exercise in stewardship to temper injustice. Since libertarianism is not inherently religous, it recognizes no such provisionality or restraints on rights and posits them to be absolute.

2) Libertarianism fundamentally conceives of its citizens, its political actors, as autonomous, rational, maximally self-governing beings, without any fundamental social obligations beyond refraining from the exercise of coercion against one's fellow citizens. Such individualism is in complete contradiction to the Christian and biblical concept of the person, who is a being defined first and foremost by a network of relations to other beings, to whom he has funndamental positive duties and obligations far beyond minimal self-restraint. The Trinity itself sets forth such beings-in-relations as the definition of persons.

3) The goal of libertarianism is minimal restraint by law on individual liberty -- only so much as is necessary to maintain order and prevent coercivee violence by one individual against another. But the Biblical concept of justice, and just government, is one that does not merely content itself with reactive measures to restrain coercion by individuals, but rather enjoins positive and proactive measures to enact and enforce God's justice.

That is why there are Christian Democrats and Christian Republicans in this country. Both recognize this last point; they differ on where and how and what kind and to what degree the positive proactive measures are enjoined. Republicans tend to look to the spheres of personal conduct and defense of the nation and existing social institutions; Democrats tend to look instead to the alteration of social institutions to a (putatively) more just order. Each side fears that the other side's view represents an unwarranted or unproductive (or counter-productive) intrusion into certain spheres it deems better left alone.

My own view is that, while conservative in most of my own positions, the Bible does not endorse any particular form of government, for all are in some sense idols (see the C. S. Lewis quote I posted under another thread some days ago). God is concerned with whether the government dispenses His justice, rather than whether it is a monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, republic, democracy, etc.

Kudos all around to Ethan, Judy, David Gray, and GL.

[Puzzled]

The founders did not sin in rebelling against England.

England had no authority in the colonies, though the crown did.

When English parliament sent troops to occupy Boston, that was an act of war.

When the king would not fulfill his duties and responsibilities in office, the lesser magistrates - the colonial legislatures, had that authority returned to them and it was their duty to act to repel the invaders and preserve the rights of the colonists as Englishmen.

This was very clear, very principled and based upon the banned book written by the Rev. Samuel Rutherford _Lex, Rex_.

[Puzzled]

The founders did not sin in rebelling against England.

England had no authority in the colonies, though the crown did.

When English parliament sent troops to occupy Boston, that was an act of war.

When the king would not fulfill his duties and responsibilities in office, the lesser magistrates - the colonial legislatures, had that authority returned to them and it was their duty to act to repel the invaders and preserve the rights of the colonists as Englishmen.

This was very clear, very principled and based upon the banned book written by the Rev. Samuel Rutherford _Lex, Rex_.

[Douglas]

James,

Democracy is merely a process. Substantively, I fail to see the difference between being subject to the whims of one moron or being subject to the whims of every moron in society. And you would have to be extremely naive not to see the greater danger in the latter. Democracy gives mob rule a veneer of legitimacy it should not enjoy.

And I have no idea where you are coming from in your analysis of rights. If Christians could not acquire rights in property, then why did God proscribe theft? If you have no right to fair treatment, why did Jesus tell Christians to do unto others as they would have done unto them? One man's duty is another man's right and vice versa.

Also, I'm puzzled by your sanguine view of democracy. After all, if individuals are not autonomous and worthy of self-rule, then what in the world are we doing giving all of them a say in government? And why do net tax consumers' votes get the same weight as net tax producers? If libertarianism is anti-Christian then, a fortiori, so is democracy.

>>But the Biblical concept of justice, and just government, is one that does not merely content itself with reactive measures to restrain coercion by individuals, but rather enjoins positive and proactive measures to enact and enforce God's justice.<<

This is the sort of attitude that gave us welfare, a positive and proactive measure to discharge our duties to the poor. I invite you to drive around your local housing projects to see the result.

Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost. Does that mean government should start your day with a mandatory morning exercise regimen? Ridiculous.

[T. Chan]

Douglas,

Criticisms of modern centralized nation-states do not necessarily apply all democracies.

[eric schansberg]

>>>>On what basis would you start with laws against homosexual sodomy within laws pertaining to sexual ethics? Why not adultery or pre-marital sex?

>>I have not given this a great deal of thought. Adultery probably has done more damage to the family and its members (the innocent spouses and children) than non-adulterous homosexuality behavior, so I do not know how I could defend laws against the latter without demanding laws against the former.

Bingo. When you push on this enough, you probably end up with theonomy or Christian libertarianism.

>>The real problem I see in not necessarily that adultery and sodomy have been decriminalized, but that they are treated as of no relevancy in legal cases in which they are involved.

Important questions, but a tangent. I'll follow up a bit on the overtly political questions below...

>>As a society, we seem to go rather easilty from adulterers and those practicing homosexual sex are not to be treated as criminals to they must be treated as if they have done nothing harmful or even that they have done something good. It is in fact possible to treat certain conduct unfavorably in the law without treating it criminally.

Great point, but again, a tangent addressing social (vs. political) costs and approaches.

>>I will now ask you a few questions:

I ask you one and then you ask me five; I see how this works! ;-)

>>Should same-sex couples be permitted to adopt children?

The way I ask the question is whether Christians should devote energies to making/keeping this illegal. Biblically, one can make an ok case; prudentially, I think not. Sadly, the alternative to same-sex couples adopting in many cases is foster care or single parents. Is this an improvement? For example, is it ok for (single-parent) pagans to adopt children? The funny/sad thing with all of this is that if Christians took James 1:27 seriously, we could avoid most or all of this discussion.

>>Should same-sex couples be permitted to marry?

They can't "marry"-- by definition. Should the state allow same-sex couples to form social contracts similar to marriage? Or back to my phrasing of it: Should Christians devote energy to this endeavor. One can make a decent case, given the social ramifications/costs, but overt Christian activism on this is not an easy case to make biblically or prudentially. (For example, if we're complaining about the potential damage that this would do to marriage, why were we largely silent when divorce was doing its work?)

[Douglas]

T. Chan,

Are there any democracies where they do not apply? Switzerland perhaps?

[David Gray]

>When you push on this enough, you probably end up with theonomy or Christian libertarianism.

Oddly enough government in this very country used to addresss all those sorts of issues without being even vaguely a theonomy.

[eric schansberg]

James, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I didn't address this particular point, so I left something unsaid-- and thus, unclear. I think your post still makes a number of great points, so it was well worth the effort...

But I am not claiming that Christians should be Libertarians in the philosophical sense. In this, you are completely correct. My claim is that ideal Christian political practice will be consistent with Libertarian political philosophy. The two groups get there by (very) different routes. But at the end of the day, they are at (or very near) the same place.

I suppose one could still argue that a Christian shouldn't call himself a Libertarian for the reasons you enunciate. But if I'm right, what other label would you suggest? Also to your point, should a Christian not call himself a Democrat or Republican? Or does the absence of a coherent political philosophy in either party excuse that labeling?

>>I refer you back to the closing sentence of my first post: "The libertarian concept of maximally self-determined liberty is fundamentally and irreconcilably at odds with the Christian one of being freed by God from the bondage of sin in order to be the servant of God."

>>This is the argument in a nutshell. As a social-poltical philosophy, libertarianism advocates maxximum individual freedom and self-determination and minimal government regulation. The basic principle is that government intervention is justified only as a reactive (not proactive) measure to prevent one citizen from using force (or undue force) against another citizen. Particular disagreements among libertarians are due to differing notions of what constitutes "force" and what correspondingly are "rights" and differing notions of who are "persons" (in a legal/political sense of autonomous individuals competent to govern their own affairs rationally) who have "rights."

[Douglas]

David,

>>Oddly enough government in this very country used to addresss all those sorts of issues without being even vaguely a theonomy.<<

That's because this was a largely homogenous nation of generally conservative Christians. Nobody chafed under such laws because it simply would not have occurred to them that such behavior should be accomodated.

Most States had an overtly Christian bias in their founding documents, and it was the States, not the federal government, which passed such laws. By contrast, the federal government's charter is explicitly secular. And the end result has been that the federal constitution is used to veto local rule on public morality.

[David Gray]

>By contrast, the federal government's charter is explicitly secular. And the end result has been that the federal constitution is used to veto local rule on public morality.

Only after the Tenth Amendment was viewed, practically speaking, as disposable.

[Michael Martin]

So, James, would a Libertarian government not be God-ordained, if God is so dead-set against it?

This is starting to sound like George Carlin's bit:

"Hey Father, if God is so all-powerful could He create a stone so big that he himself could not lift it?"

"Have faith, my son."

[Caryl Johnston]

The best libertarians are to be found on the website www.lewrockwell.com. Some are Christians and maybe some aren't, but the site is always worth reading.

[Thomas Cothran]

In reading over the comments -- and coming to the conversation a bit late -- I feel some points have to be made. First, to those who declare dogmatically that libertarianism and Christianity are incompatible: those who identify themselves as libertarians cannot agree on a definition. If you, as an outsider, can divine "true libertarianism", you must have some God-like wisdom. The truth is that there is no Platonesque form of "libertarianism," rather, like religion, it is a sort of umbrella term for those political philosophies that wish to keep government as unobtrusive as possible. The varying theories do not necessarily even share the same fundamental principles; they just reach similar conclusions. They cannot be rejected as a bundle, but must be dealt with individually. The out of hand rejection is intellectually lazy, and ultimately creates straw men.

I consider myself a libertarian with regard to the State, but very conservative in regard to politics (in the sense that, for example, Aristotle uses the term). Furthermore, I am a Christian. I have no need to defend Ayn Rand or John Stuart Mill, for their position is not mine. The anti-Christian elements in their philosophies have no part in mine. In fact, I consider my libertarianism a necessary outcome of my conservatism, which, in turn, is a necessary outcome of my Christianity. This may sound peculiar, especially to those who believe one's soul is endangered by joining the Democratic party (and by this I do not mean anyone on this board).

Here is how it works: as a conservative Christian I believe that ethical laws apply equally to everyone. The ethical is, by definition, universal. Therefore, those in government are to be judged by the same ethical rules as everyone else. There may be no exception. If it is wrong to take money that one has not earned force (or the threat thereof), this applies to those in government as well as those not in government. If it is wrong for me to trespass on my neighbor's property to investigate his or her sexual habits, then I am guilty of two crimes: trespass and nosiness. If it is wrong for me to decide for my neighbor what chemicals he may have running through his brain, it is wrong for the DEA as well. In short, Christian morality requires that all obey a moral code. While it is wrong for me to, for example, eat too much food, it is also wrong for the government to barge in my house and violate my property. It is this consistent application of morality that leads me to libertarianism. Now, I will admit, this view does heavily depend upon the acceptance of property, but that defense can wait for another time.

Finally, I see the Romans 13 passage has come up (as it inevitably does in these discussions). Regardless of what exactly the passage is referring to, I see no reason that it would loose agents of the State from any moral laws, which would leave my libertarian position intact. But there are further problems with this appeal. Paul in this chapter assures his readers that if they do right, the authorities will not punish them. At the time this was written, this was manifestly not the case. And as a victim of persecution, Paul knew this well. So either Paul was lying, or the authorities to which he refers does not include his government. There really is no other option. So let's put this Romans 13 thing as proof of the legitimacy of the State to rest. It is easily refuted by just a little historical knowledge, and introductory level logic.

[Thomas Cothran]

Oh, and Caryl Johnston is definitely right when she says that the best libertarians are at lewrockwell.com. For those who were objecting to the lack of prominent Christian libertarians, the site will be refreshing. It tends towards the most extreme anarchist side of the libertarians spectrum (politically, not culturally), but most of the writers are Christians.

[Judy Warner]

I used to read lewrockwell.com occasionally. I found it the libertarian equivalent of our friend Dirk -- more eager to call names and think of clever insults than to cast light. Just now I went to it and read the beginning of "Happy Elected Dictator Day," which didn't change my opinion.

So at least now I know where you are coming from.

[Ethan Cordray]

Thomas, if it wasn't his government, just who was this strange sword-wielding person that Paul refers to as "huperexousian" and "arxontein"? Peter? Your literalist interpretation, supposing that there cannot be exceptions to Paul's general principle without the principle itself being invalid, strikes me as weak. Have you studied the traditions of interpretation for this passage? Which of the Church Fathers thought it didn't apply to the State? I've not studied them either, but then I'm not the one proposing an interpretation that goes against the common translations and appears to reverse the plain meaning. You have the burden of proof. (aside: anybody remember that link for converting Roman to Greek fonts?)

In other particulars, James expresses my thoughts more fluently and adequately than I can.

As to Eric's question, "...should a Christian not call himself a Democrat or Republican?" I don't see why one would do so unless one were an official member of either organization, as those are names of political parties and not political philosophies (at least in the sense that I take Eric to be using them). Libertarian, however, while it is also a name of a party, is often used as a name for a distinct political philosophy. We have heard several attempts to define Libertarianism, most of which have been severely criticized, and which other self-identified libertarians have also disavowed. Thomas now asserts that it is a nebulous term with many possible philosophical bases. While that's rather hard to dispute, it doesn't seem to help us very much in attempting to answer the original post's question.

So perhaps we may try another approach to find a definition of libertarianism. Thomas or Eric (or both, and anyone else), what do you find helpful and meaningful about identifying yourself as libertarian? What do you have in common with other libertarians that distinguishes the group from others? Supposing that someone claimed to be a libertarian, what sort of opinions would you expect him to hold?

Personally, I identify myself as a traditionalist conservative in the Burke/Kirk/Wendell Berry mode. There are some issues on which I am very closely aligned with the libertarian view, such as on multi-party election reform and reduction of federal power. Yet I am uncomfortable with personally adopting the term libertarian, especially because other of the policy proposals commonly identified with the term are irreconcilable with my political philosophy, such as the legalization of drugs and the total abolition of governmental economic intervention. What might distinguish libertarianism from my sort of conservatism? Why are many libertarians capable of reaching political conclusions that I find untenable?

[GL]

Bingo. When you push on this enough, you probably end up with theonomy or Christian libertarianism.

Or what we managed to have for most of our history without the hysteria about an overreaching government imposing God's law on the godless.

>>The real problem I see in not necessarily that adultery and sodomy have been decriminalized, but that they are treated as of no relevancy in legal cases in which they are involved.

Important questions, but a tangent. I'll follow up a bit on the overtly political questions below...

>>As a society, we seem to go rather easilty from adulterers and those practicing homosexual sex are not to be treated as criminals to they must be treated as if they have done nothing harmful or even that they have done something good. It is in fact possible to treat certain conduct unfavorably in the law without treating it criminally.

Great point, but again, a tangent addressing social (vs. political) costs and approaches.

I beg to differ. Government can punish certain conduct and reward others by means other than criminal law. Libertarians are not merely opposed to criminal laws against "victimless crimes," they are opposed to government favoring or disfavoring certain behaviors in both the social and the economic spheres. Such matters are, libertarians declare, none of the governments business. My suggestions are in no way tangential; they go to the heart of the question of whether you would support any laws to support the family and oppose those activities which are harmful to it. I appear to have my answer. You do appear to be a true libertarian -- I'll give you that. Your answers on adoption and "gay" marriage appear to me to confirm that impression.

This also tends to prove my view that it is one extreme or the other with many folks. In your own words, theonomy or libertarianism. I personally am opposed to sending people to jail or prison for adultery and sodomy, but I am in favor of those who so act being treated unfavorably in other ways, including in divorce and custody cases, the tax codes, etc. As I tell my students, I grade on a curve because the only way to reward the best students is to give them a better grade than those who do not do as well, which, of course, results in the bulk of the students getting lower grades than the best and the worse getting lower grades than the bulk. The same applies to behaviors which we as a society desire; we should favor those who behave in ways that are beneficial to society and disfavor those who behave in ways that are harmful to society. Sound families are good for society. Anything that harms family life is bad for society. Libertarians reject such notions and that is why I reject libertarianism.

>>I will now ask you a few questions:

I ask you one and then you ask me five; I see how this works! ;-)

I'm a lawyer; I can't help my self. ;-)

[Thomas Cothran]

Ethan,

First, as I said, there is nothing in Romans 13 that indicates that rulers are exempt from morality (which would be a negation of the foundation of ethics), and so my point about libertarianism being an extension of Christianity is unaffected regardless of one's interpretation of the passage. My comment on Romans was secondary.

You say that I am interpreting the verse too literally at first, and then criticize me for not being literal enough in accepting the "plain meaning." The plain meaning is this: rulers are put in their places by God, and the good have nothing to fear from them. It is only evildoers who have reason to fear. This is a universal statement, and the most clear meaning is also the most absurd. Jesus died at the hands of the rulers, the sword they wield was used on him. Now, you might say I'm being too rigorist, and that there are minor exceptions to every rule. Perhaps. After all, the phrase "all men sin" there was at least one exception. But this exception was exceptional. I don't see any semblance of reason in declaring the Roman empire -- which is largely the foundation for most Western governments -- to be an exception. Perhaps the cruelty of the Roman empire was a novelty, and I just misunderstand what happened in the USSR, Hitler's Germany, or Mao's China. Perhaps I am just a pessimist, but when I look through history, I get the impression that it is the government who never harms the good that is the exception. Even Christian Rome persecuted its own during the doctrinal wars.

You say the burden of proof is on me, since I do not accept the "plain meaning". I still think the dilemma holds. Either Paul is lying about the nature of rulers, or he is not referring to those in charge of the government. There is no other way out. The idea that he was excepting the Roman government from that general rule, when he was writing to those in Rome, strikes me as quite untenable. Was he talking of the Chinese government? Perhaps he was defending tribal governments in the Americas.

I am no skilled exegete, so I will defer to others to explain what exactly Paul is referring to. By the way, St. John Chrysostum does have a commentary on Romans 13, and he devotes at least as much time to applying the passage to slave-owners as he does to kings.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>our friend Dirk -- more eager to call names and think of clever insults than to cast light.<<<

how can you call me friend when you just can't stop misrepresenting me

[David Gray]

>First, as I said, there is nothing in Romans 13 that indicates that rulers are exempt from morality (which would be a negation of the foundation of ethics), and so my point about libertarianism being an extension of Christianity is unaffected regardless of one's interpretation of the passage.

The rulers are permitted to execute people according to Romans. What individual is permitted that?

[eric schansberg]

Good morning all! A few things in response to ovenight activity:

First, it occurred to me that this discussion has had nothing on issues of economic justice. In our circles, this is common but quite regrettable and indefensible.

To Ethan's query, I would offer the following simple definitions of Lib:
a.) positive: that people should be allowed to do what they want unless they impose direct and significant costs on others (or putting it on a spectrum: "do what they want to the extent that they don't impose...")
b.) negative: govt should not prevent people from doing what they want to do unless they impose direct and significant costs on others (again, a spectrum is more complex but more appropriate)
Again, to the particular question which interests me most: When should Christians use their time, talent, and treasure to invoke govt as a means to the end of restraining behavior?

GL, you'll note that I agreed that your points on courts were "great" but a bit of a tangent. Courts are a legitimate (and arguably preferable) means for addressing these issues. For one thing, courts would seem to have more flexibility and could use more discretion to address particular contexts...

To the particular questions that I avoided earlier:
On #1: Sure, courts should consider adultery (beyond that, at least on paper, you'd hope the courts would address a range of topics within those proceedings)
On #2: I don't know what that means/entails. Please explain briefly if you think it's important.
On #4: Yes, the courts should consider sexual preferences-- within the larger context of what is considered to be in the best (but now damaged) interests of the children. To play with two of your favorite topics: should custody of children be given to an adulterer or a homosexual who was faithful within the context of marriage?

[Ethan Cordray]

Thomas, I may not have been clear enough in my argument. I do not believe Paul to be exempting the cruel and oppressive Roman empire from his category of rulers to which are appointed by God to do justice and to wield the sword. Just the opposite, in fact. I believe the claim he is making is that even corrupt and cruel regimes remain part of the divinely mandated structure to punish wickedness and reward goodness. His warrant, that only the wicked need fear the ruler, is to be interpreted proverbially (meaning like Solomon's Proverbs), as a general rule that is not disproven by exceptions.

Paul's own ministry in Acts seem to bear out this testimony. Though he was constantly persecuted by the civil authorities of the Jewish community, he never disputed the legitimacy of their authority as duly constituted by God. This is why he apologizes for insulting the high priest in Acts 23, saying, "You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people," even after the priest had just commanded him to be struck. In the same way, as a Roman citizen Paul submitted in every way to the Roman authorities, whose temporal authority he was subjected to. He exercized the rights he was legally afforded (such as protection from flogging and appeal to Caesar), but he neither judged the Roman authorities as illegitimate nor judged himself to be free from their authority because of his new identity in Christ.

So you'd think that Paul's life would be the exception that disproves the rule, except that he himself does not give us this interpretation. Rather, his cooperation with the rulers of his day greatly facilitated his ministry of spreading the gospel. Acts ends with him awaiting judgment in Rome, yet because of his willingness to submit to that judgment, he is allowed the freedom to preach openly and receive visitors in his house.

Now, I do not think Paul's instruction concerning rulers applies only to kings, but they are the ones who primarily bear the sword to temporally punish wickedness. (Especially nowadays. In the days of Paul and Chrysostom, slave owners and fathers possessed similar powers over their households that they no longer do today.) The State in so far as it is an authority does demand our submission in all things save any overtly sinful acts.

I do not believe the debate over Romans 13 can be secondary, as it seems very important to answering the original post's question. Can one be a libertarian while still holding to the the Pauline order of submission? The answer is not at all clear to me, but the arguments presented so far on this thread have not encouraged me to think so.

If only Stuart weren't on his lenten fast! :) Ah well, it is good to learn not merely to depend on our resident experts.

[Ethan Cordray]

GL, thanks for the words about government encouraging moral structures by non-criminal means. I have not thought enough about that area in contemplating my political philosophy.

[Douglas]

Ethan,

Your thoughtful post yet begs the question, how far does this duty to submit to government extend? Was the proper Christian response to the end of the Cold War for us to weep great tears over Eastern Europe overthrowing its Divinely ordained socialist rulers?

And again, in light of your post, by what right could the US government claim to be Divinely ordained?

And finally, what does Paul's injunction tell us about democracy, which basically empowers the people--not the rulers--to throw out the government if they decide it's not handing out enough goodies?

Complex questions, indeed. A learned Catholic acquaintance is of the opinion that government is worthy only of its due, that is, it is worthy only insofar as the government itself is in accordance with God's laws.

[GL]

GL, you'll note that I agreed that your points on courts were "great" but a bit of a tangent.

I am at a loss as to why you consider one of the three co-equal branches of government "a bit of a tangent" when discussing the role of government. Please explain.

On #1: Sure, courts should consider adultery (beyond that, at least on paper, you'd hope the courts would address a range of topics within those proceedings)

Having handled about 1000 divorce cases when I practiced, I can tell you that at least where I practiced, adultery by at least one party and likely both was considered a far gone conclusion and given *no* weight in the proceedings. The judges would tell counsel not to even introduce evidence regarding it as it had nothing to do with the issue the court was deciding, division of property, maintenance, child custody (if applicable) and child support. In each case, except custody, the court basically followed a forumula. In child custody matters, the court did not consider the comparative fidelity of the parents to be relevant. The statutes, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, define much of this and the courts mass-produce the outcomes without a lot of individualization. That is the reality of no-fault divorce.

On #2: I don't know what that means/entails. Please explain briefly if you think it's important.

Alienation of affection suits are a common law cause of action which a spouse injured by adultery has against the paramour of the guilty spouse. It allows the injured spouse to recover monetary damages for his or her loss from the paramour who alienated from him or her the affections of the guilty spouse. Several states have either through statute or court decision repealed the cause of action and it has been heavily criticized by some commentators, especially feminists who assert that it is an anachronism born in the days when women were chattel. In fact, it provides a means of punishing one who steals the spouse of another, that is, commits adultery, by making them provide monetary (inadequate as money may be in such situations) damages resulting from their actions. Theoretically, it should act to inhibit adultery, especially by those with something to lose financially.

On #4: Yes, the courts should consider sexual preferences-- within the larger context of what is considered to be in the best (but now damaged) interests of the children. To play with two of your favorite topics: should custody of children be given to an adulterer or a homosexual who was faithful within the context of marriage?

I don't know. I guess one would have to look at all the circumstances in each such case. The ideal would be that such a choice would not have to be made, but we all know that such circumstances exist.

First, it occurred to me that this discussion has had nothing on issues of economic justice. In our circles, this is common but quite regrettable and indefensible.

I believe government should have policies designed to enhance economic justice. In general, however, I believe policies which enhance job creation and educational opportunities are best at offering the opportunity of economic justice. One must be careful not to kill employment prospects in an effort to achieve "justice." For example, raising the minimum wage, while nice in theory, in practice hurts those who actually work at the minimum wage by raising the cost of labor. For some workers, whose production is worth only the current minimum wage, it will lead not to better income from work but to no income from work, as they will lose their jobs. So what is intended as enhancing economic justice actually harms it. Legislation designed to punish predatory lenders (the editors of the WSJ are wrong, there is such a thing as predatory lenders) should be enacted. The tax code can enhance economic justice by giving large deductions and exemptions so as not to tax those who are truly in poverty and to not tax too heavily the working poor. Ronald Reagan's expansion of the earned income tax credit was an example of economic justice policy.

Ethan,

GL, thanks for the words about government encouraging moral structures by non-criminal means. I have not thought enough about that area in contemplating my political philosophy.

All public policy is (or at least should be) designed to promote a more desirable outcome than would apply absent any policy. It can do this by rewarding desired behavior and/or by punishing undesirable behavior. There is much government can -- and should -- do short of locking folks behind bars to support healthy family life and to inhibit activity that is detrimental to healthy family life. In the tax code, for example, government could not only remove the marriage penalty, it could favor married couples, especially those who marriages are of long duration. For example, the tax code could give a "marriage deduction" which increases each year based on the number of years the filing couple have been married. A divorce would, of course, take the deduction away and a remarried person would have to start again at year one. The tax code could support childbearing by significantly increasing the dependency exemption. Allan Carson has proposed reforms to the Social Security tax system to support family life.

One problem with extending marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples is that it would reduce the relative benefits now enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Just as my assigning more A's in my class would reduce the relative worth of the few A's I currently assign. Just as I enduce more effort by being stingy with my A's, government can enduce healthy marriages by being stingy with who gets the benefits of marriage.

[GL]

Ethan,

Can one be a libertarian while still holding to the the Pauline order of submission?

This brings us to an interesting aspect of this thread. We (that includes me) have treated the libertarians as violating our understanding of Romans 13:1. In fact, libertarians are not calling for a rebellion against the governments God has ordained, but that those governments restrict their sphere of activity. In fairness, they have not said that they would not submit to a government that is not libertarian -- I assume that they currently are so submitting. If God can ordain the government of imperial Rome, He can ordain the government of Ayn Rand.

The real issue, then, is what is the proper role of government. I still believe government has a role in enforing the common good per David Gray's reference to Romans 13:3-5. Romans 13 is pretty clear on what it says and I believe another explanation other than it does not mean what it appears to mean must be offered than any I have seen so far from those who dispute its clear meaning.

[Ethan Cordray]

Douglas, those are very good questions, and it is important to ask such things when one is trying to live according to Paul's instruction. Here are my brief answers.

1. The Cold War: we would not be requred to weep over the destruction of the Soviet regimes per se, though like Jeremiah we might weep over them like Babylon, lamenting the need for their destruction and the suffering their falls have caused. God "raises up kings and casts them down," after all, reserving special judgment for those who arrogate to themselves His ruling prerogatives. That said, were we living in Eastern Europe during the 1980's we would not be justified in attempting to overthrow our regime by extra-legal means. Fortunately, the Soviets were largely deposed in accordance with their own written laws.

2. The U.S. government is most definitely divinely ordained, but no more so than any other duly constituted government operating in accordance with the laws of a land. Its origin in an extra-legal rebellion does not deligimize it. Divine ordination does not constitute divine approval, however. If anything, it means that such a structure will be more rigorously judged by God for violations of its appointed office (much like a corrupt priest or an abusive spouse).

3. The arrangement of democracy most definitely complicates things. In so far as a democracy legally derives its authority from the consent of the governed, we the governed do possess the right to deny it that consent. However, even in a democracy, there are only certain limited legal ways in which one can legitimately deny that consent, i.e. voting. Thus you can feel free to vote the bastards out, but you cannot e.g. refuse to pay your income taxes.

Moreover, our system of government is not a simple democracy but rather a republic, in which popular sovereignty is ceded to representatives who wield that authority on behalf of their constituencies. We thus owe to them our submission in obeying the laws they enact as our rulers, because they stand for the citizens, while we also have the obligation ouselves to maintain enough wisdom to chose those leaders wisely and advise them when necessary. We may disagree vehemently with their governing principles and actions, but we are not free to insult or disregard their legally constituted offices. And if we wish to change official governmental structures, the only legitimate means is through the established legal framework for doing so.

Speaking of legal frameworks, to the extent that a government is not following its own laws, I do believe that citizens might be justified in giving their allegiance to the governing law rather than to the governing person. The modern state has allowed this distinction to be made in a way that was impossible in most premodern political arrangements (except perhaps in the Roman system).

Your Catholic acquaintance is onto something in a sense, in that we are not bound to submit to government policies which are themselves direct violations of God's commands. Yet in all things that we cannot certainly identify as such, we must submit. Daniel is the greatest Biblical example of the principle, refusing to bow to the king's image, to eat unclean food, or to cease daily prayer, but in all other things submitting to the king's commands.

Now, I think the structure of government may in itself sometimes be contrary to Gods laws, but only I suspect in certain rare cases in which the ruler(s) arrogate to themselves divine authority. I think this was the case in communism, Nazism, and the pagan Roman Empire. Policies that are based upon such a claim may be by their nature inimical to God's laws and thus rightly disregardable by Christians. Yet even then, I do not think the elements of government that do not follow from the offending claim are also delegitimized. The Senate does not forfeit its authority merely because the Emperor is considered a god. A policy of selection and discernment is very important for Christians living under such a regime.

[peterspence]

Allow me to chime in. As far as this topic goes, I believe I can consider myself an "enlightened libertarian," though this is no well-thought-out political platform. As far as governmental meddling in the lives of the populace, I prefer to see as little as possible and as much as is absolutely neccessary.

As for Romans 13, apparently people make it mean whatever they want it to mean. For me, I prefer to rely on Paul in Roman's 12, wherein he admonishes Christians to humilty, patience, forebearance. We are to submit ourselves to the State, because we are to rely on God's justice (which is not meted out in this world) and not the justice of this world (the state). In a way, it is an admonishment to a-political involvement. Christians should be concerned with the Kingdom of God:
"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." Romans 12: 14-18.

And, if you want to get real nitpicky, the modern political system most closely represented in the early Christian communities (in Acts 4) is Communism. Ouch!