Libertarian Christians
(The more typical phrase is “Christian libertarians” but I think we would all agree that our faith is more important than our [anti-]political views.)
I am still in Chile and do not have a long time to blog, so let me just say this: There is a perception that most libertarians are atheists. There even appears to be a logical consistency here: “I don’t believe in political overlords and I don’t believe in a tyrant in the sky.”
I don’t have time to do justice to the compatibility of Christianity (or monotheism more generally) with Rothbardian libertarianism, but you can try this for a taste. I just want to note that this widespread perception is false; there are many libertarian Christians, even among leaders in the movement, and I’m not just talking about the obvious ones. The quiet ones don’t speak up because they don’t enjoy being denounced (oddly enough).
So say it loud and proud, my brothers and sisters in Christ: You have nothing to lose but your shame.
“I don’t believe in political overlords and I don’t believe in a tyrant in the sky.”
Sorry, that’s a bit astray. It should go: neither of those authorities make any sense to me. legally or morally.
The word ‘believe’ is kind of vague so that I tend to not use it without defining it.
“I don’t believe in political overlords and I don’t believe in a tyrant in the sky.”
Sorry, that’s a bit astray. It should go: neither of those authorities make any sense to me. legally or morally.
The word ‘believe’ is kind of vague so that I tend to not use it without defining it.
This is because Catholic Church does not see the difference between libertarian and libertine. And, oddly enough, feels equally negatively as well as strongly about capitalism and socialism.
Which is stupid. Understandable, but stupid. Goes back quite some time, but makes the same error as many people nowadays – that we have free market capitalism, which is source of half of all evils.
Which, again oddly enough, does not resound with christian faith: that we have free will, free hand in using it and, thanks to Jesus Christ, no moral grounds to force anything on anyone, in contrast to “opposition”.
There is – at least for Catholic – issue of “Doing The Right Thing” and being faithful to the Truth. Abortion is most obvious and easiest example. But this can be tackled. I think…
Essentially each organized power structure tends to believe that it should be the one and only source of political power in the universe… and works towards this end.
Thus if your belief is that we should all look up to the Pope (because the Pope is God’s representative on Earth), then this implies government departments are less important than the Pope. If your belief is that the Bible is the direct word of God and thus we can skip right past the Pope, then you probably also think that some government regulation ranks lower than the rules and regulations found in the Bible. If you are an Atheist, generally you elevate some personal set of principles that you live by (whatever they may be) and you aren’t too impressed with the idea that government may violate your own personal principles at a whim.
Atheist Libertarians should work with Christians wherever there is a common goal, and most Atheist Libertarians are not too far in principle from the Bible Christians when it comes to how to associate with other people, speaking honestly, making agreements, keeping promises, living within your means, etc. I follow the basis that morality exists as a pact between humans; thus people may make any arbitrary agreement between themselves if they choose to, but only some structures will be workable on a wide basis. Over time we have figured out the main details of what works and what doesn’t so who cares whether those concepts came from God, or whether they were stumbled upon by accident?
Tel,
Faith is a funny thing. It gives you perspective rather… stropngly defined.
I use an example of abortion because it illustrates the problem very well. And is a funny one, as well. First of all, Christians – and especially Catholics – due to views that innocent soul (it is what this is all about, after all) goes straight to Heaven. Current view that human life starts at the conception is not supported by majority of greatest Catholic thinkers. In fact, theory of the first breath would be closest to Catholic “literature”. On the other hand, Atheists are most staunch proponents of abortion (I think) – which is crazy as according to their view it irreversibly destroys unique set of genes. So, if I, as a Catholic, view abortion as a murder, how can I stand idly by in the name of principle of freedom of choice? This is what I mean by issue of the “Right Thing” – we are not supposed to be indifferent to evil, right? So… How to compromise?
It is not the issue of the goals, by of the means. Because there is lot of “incompatibilities” like that in the world for Christians working with Atheists or teists or deists or nihilists. or all of them.
Not that I’m saying cant be done – just it is hard.
Sure, and contraception also destroys a unique set of genes.
For that matter, preventing rape also destroys a unique set of genes.
The point being that there’s nothing inherent to Atheism that says creating new genes is the only thing that matters in the world. Perhaps you are thinking of Kopimism, which is not quite the same as Atheism (but could be considered a subset).
At some stage you have to balance to woman’s personal rights (ownership of her body) against the baby’s rights. Like I said already, from my point of view morality exists as a pact between humans, so it basically comes down to firstly what people will agree on, and secondly what produces a stable outcome, once people have agreed. If everyone decides to murder everyone else then you have general agreement, but not stability (the population will collapse). If everyone agrees that murder can be acceptable under very limited and special circumstances then you have both agreement and also stability providing no one tries to push their luck by stretching the envelope and extend it a little more and a little more. That’s why as a practical necessity the line must be clearly drawn somewhere.
P.J. O’Rourke explains a libertarian position on abortion pretty well if you search a bit you should find it. He probably doesn’t take his religion as seriously as you do, but he is very agile when it comes so recognising people’s point of view.
On the topic of murder, I guess issues like euthanasia bring into question how much we can trust each other. We can all imagine situations where euthanasia is the most humane choice, but we can also easily imagine situations where something like that gets abused. How to prevent abuse? How to keep a banker honest?
Well don’t work with other people if that’s what you want.
Ultimately the people who get what they want in politics are the people who can keep their team coherent and organized long enough to push their vision onto the rest. Sadly quite often this turns out to be the socialists because keeping the dumb grunts in line is what they are good at.
Tel,
No. You cannot destroy what does not exist. So rape argument is out. Contraception is different case, with which I have issues. I put that in the same category as drinking, smoking, and eating meat on friday. Since catholics can eat meat on friday since last year, I fear there is solid inconsistency here. But mainly it is my body so no harm done.
Abortion. Since we are on murder comparison, then I would equate it to beating to death with a bat 80-year old woman by 20 year old steroid-mad youngster.
Since we cannot scientifically draw a line when fetus becomes human being CC went Alexander with this knot. And I have to admit it is controversial, but deeply logical and moral.
And I do not see logic on “agreement”. We can agree to anything between us, but how about third person, fourth etc.? That’s why libertarian are so big on freedom. And property. In that light: fetus is human being or not? Has it’s rights or not?
Libertarianism does not say: own property, but there are exceptions. So, if there are no exceptions to that, who is more libertarian: Christian anti-abortionist or pro-choice? Remember, on this site, on this level of discussion on libertarianism, answer “yes, but” does not count.
“If you are an Atheist, generally you elevate some personal set of principles that you live by (whatever they may be) and you aren’t too impressed with the idea that government may violate your own personal principles at a whim.”
Forgive me, if it is rude to say so, but I always find it odd how atheists speak of one another as if there is some general atheist worldview, but I don’t think that is true at all. In particular, there are a great many atheists who are not skeptical about statism at all. They-atheists who happen to be statists-believe strongly that science has all the answers, and universal answers that are true for everyone, not just in matters of bare physical fact (where I would personally agree science can *get* all the answers but not that it already has them), but in matters of personal preference and how to live one’s life. Therefore they are actually enamored with the idea of the government violating people’s personal principles so as to organize their lives along the “scientifically correct” lines.
I don’t mean, I must note, to say this is true of all atheists, or even a majority of atheists-I haven’t done a poll-but I know for a fact there are atheists of this view because, for one thing, Marxists exist. I’ve met some.
Simultaneously, there are people of religious faith who apparently sincerely believe that statism and faith naturally go together.
I’m not sure which of these views I find more repugnant, personally.
I’m not personally very religious but I am sympathetic to religion, just to be clear where I come from on this.
I never said all Atheists had the same set of personal principles, after all that’s what makes it “personal”. Generally, if you reject religion as something to model your life on, you are going to pick up something else instead, maybe Marxism, maybe other things.
There’s a lot of people out there claiming scientific correctness, but science is just a methodology, an approach to understanding the world, it is what it is, and what you make of it. If the Marxists end up ruling the world then from an evolutionary point of view, Marxism is successful. However if the Pentecostal Church ends up ruling the world then from an evolutionary point of view Marxism has failed and religion is successful… but this works for anything you like so there’s no useful information contained in the theorem.
I think it would be hypocritical to believe in personal freedom without also believing that people have the right to a religion if it helps them. I personally don’t find myself attracted to it, but it’s entirely possible I just don’t understand.
Ah, Chile. The county declared by the Heritage Foundation to be the economically freest in Latin America. Also, a country whose government completely bans abortion.
I fail to see the inconsistency here….ergo, your comment on abortion comes off as a non sequitur. A country may be quite free economically but much less so on social issues. Singapore would be a prime example of this….one of the most modern and open economics in the world, but crimes as innocent as littering or walking around your house naked will get you in deep doo-doo.
Singapore’s caning policy is something to object to. It’s death penalty for even the smallest amount of drugs on your person is also whack.
That was kinda my point. I didn’t say I agreed with Singapore’s (or Chile’s) harsh crackdown on “social crimes,” just pointed out that it’s not uncommon for a country to have a very strict social code but retain a very open marketplace. Perhaps a case can be made that strict enforcement (and harsh punishment) of drug laws is as much an economic issue as it is a social one, but that’s for another discussion. The point is that EH didn’t have much of a point in disputing the HF’s assessment of Chile’s economy by bringing up their take on abortion.
The split is between the two is a disturbing one for me. I’m very much a civil libertarian and it saddens me when economic prerogatives win the day over issues of civil liberty.
And?
“God is omnipotent, so everything that happens, occurs because God wants it to.”
To quote you, a response to this comment would be like “shooting fish in a barrel.”
Let’s use what you said you would use against a Christian who tried to use Romans 13 against your libertarian views:
If a typical American libertarian tried to use Romans 13 against my Christian views, it’s shooting fish in a barrel. I can ask him (of course it would be a guy arguing with me) if he supported the removal of initiations of violence from society, he would answer of course he did, and then I would ask why we had the audacity to call for the removal of violence God had installed.
Oops.
I fail to see how it makes any sense at all to reverse that argument.
Look up logical form.
The point I’m making is not that it is a gotcha against the libertarian, it’s that the Christian, according to Murphy, is justified in chastising anyone who had the audacity to question anything that happens, since it is God’s will. The concept “anyone” includes, of course, libertarians like Murphy.
In other words, the Christian answer to a libertarian would mean Murphy the Christian has to chastise Murphy the libertarian.
Sorry for not being more clear.
An article was written about this subject that’s hosted on LRC:
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
While I don’t necessarily agree with the title for the same reasons you probably don’t believe Paul would be endorsing For A New Liberty, he makes basically the same point about Romans 13 and other parts of the Bible that supposedly justify statism.
The only thing I have to object to is the parenthetical “anti” in front of political. That’s rich.
Daniel, I think what he is referring to is politics. I have a similar stance, I don’t engage in politics and I don’t see much merit in doing so, but I am very interested in political philosophy. After all, it would be a bit contradictory to be an anarchist and also legitimize the state through political action within its arena.
Hoping I had made it obvious…
When you read your Bible and stop listening to the “church”, you realize Christianity is the ultimate blueprint for Libertarianism.
PS, Romans 13,lol. Paul/Saul has still not been able to remove his tongue from his cheek and it has been 2000 years.
1 Samuel 8
New International Version (NIV)
Israel Asks for a King
8 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders.[a] 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
Then Samuel said to the Israelites, “Everyone go back to your own town.”
He only takes 10% of your grain and flocks? Where do I sign up for that?
Even the Bible is saying todays tax rates unfathomable.
The Bible equated 10% with slavery.
What does that make us today?
The Bible is on the side of Libertarians.
The problem with religion is that it takes an anti-libertarian position on issues. For example, libertarians believe that individuals should be free to make up their own mind and do what they want so long as it doesn’t hurt other people. Religion takes a more black and white view. If something is bad then it is forbidden, end of matter. If something is sinful then it shouldn’t be allowed regardless of whether or not it hurts people. Religion takes an interventionist role in people’s lives.
The Catholic Church is a case in point. If it disagrees with something (divorce, homosexuality, contraceptives etc) then it is forbidden for everyone even if it doesn’t harm anyone else. Catholic countries even used to censor books that went against Church teachings.
Of course this isn’t to say you can’t be religious and a libertarian or vice versa. But it does mean you have to keep the two ideas in separate parts of your brain where they can’t mix. You can’t apply Christian thought to libertarian issues or libertarian thought to Christian issues.
But where does the New Testament take an anti-libertarian view point? Specifically?
But where? Dude, Google is your friend.
John 15:6 is one of many.
Money-changers.
Wait a second, the Fed Reserve and Digital Fiat with near zero reserves is the modern day equivalent of the money changers.
I know all about Google.
However I have no idea how your selected text is an example of anti libertarianism?
Robert,
What I’m saying is that Christianity, unlike major “competition”, does not say: “it’s bad, therefore forbidden”. You are free to do whatever you like. But there will be consequences of that. Some on this earth, majority later.
But there is an issue here – my faith requires from me to be the withess to the truth. There is only one truth. Also, my faith requires me to stand up to evil. There is evil in this world. Small, big, great, tiny – take your pick. But it is evil nonetheless. Cant pick which is and which is not. This is precisely what happens with bad/evil people. Nobody is born evil. Nobody is able to say all the time “I didn’t know”. Sooner or later there is a choice to be made. Some make bad choice and joins “the dark side”.
Faith helps you stay on track.
Catholic church does not forbid anything. They say what is good and what is bad. Please do not confuse others. Unlike Islam, papal bulla cannot be grounds for stoning or plain murder. Ron Howard, whose movies based on Dan Brown books are on the index of Catholic church (marked as heretical and not recommended for catholics), has nothing to fear from me. Unlike Rushdie for his books.
Secondly – books used to be censored, yes, but based on SCIENTIFIC reasons. Copernicus book had ben altered so as to say that earth “probapbly” revolves around the sun, because no one could prove it. Even Galileo was forced to admit that, and only that. He was forbidden to speak of it as if it was a fact. No one told him to shut up.
It is a shame that Holy Officium Did not stayed on course. Keynes could be avoided entirely…
Rothbardian thought starts with self-ownership, Christian thought starts with creation and divine ownership of man. What makes them compatible is that in both cases, man cannot own man. So while the normative claims are completely different, you can easily get to the exact same conclusions with regard to property rights, homesteading, and so on.
It’s also the case that Christianity endorses an even stronger version of the non-aggression principle. If the words of Jesus are to be taken seriously, not only can you not initiate force against innocents, you can’t even initiate force against people who act aggressively against you! Again, no incompatibility there – Libertarians allow, but don’t require retaliatory responses to aggression
Christian thought includes the Bible.
If the Bible is anti-libertarian, then there is no reconciliation.
The Bible is not anti libertarian…
Explain the plethora of anti-libertarian passages in the Bible.
Christian thought IS the Bible. Without the Bible there would be no Christianity.
However this does not mean the Bible is anti Libertarianism.
How about what the Bible says? Does that count as to whether or not the Bible is pro or anti-libertarian?
Of Course. It is the only source to consider.
Yeah I know, many church goers act like God speaks to them, they saw God, or it is all some kind of mission. In reality, God gives his explicit message via the Bible. His code for humans is contained within the Bible.
You have to decide if the Bible is a Statist doctrine. The socialist claim the Bible is in their corner but none of their examples stand up to scrutiny. For example they always site the parable of the vineyard as an example of socialism. This story is about a vineyard owner hires workers in the morning for 1 denarius. He hires more workers through the day. At the end of the day he pays all of the works 1 denarius. The early workers grumble. He says ” Did I not pay you what we agreed upon?”. Socialist love this one. They somehow think/say it is an example of socialism.
The vineyard was managed by the vineyard owner, the story makes this clear. So now we have established private property. The vineyard owner then goes on to ask the early workers if he gave them what they agreed upon. We have now establish contract law.
So at this point the socialist are not looking good.
You see, the Bible really is on the side of Libertarian. I am not asking you folks to become Christians, I am simply asking you to support a libertarian interpretation of The Bible.
Jesus attended a dinner and specifically sat with the sick people so he could better heal those in need. Jesus said he sat near tax collectors.
Mark 2:13-17
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Calls Levi and Eats With Sinners
13 Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
1 Samuel 8 God reams the people for wanting a King instead of God and goes on to list he misery they will inflict upon themselves. God illustrates a 10% taking by the King. The Bible speaks of 10% as horrid. look at todays tax rates. 1Sam8 also talks about other things the King will take for himself.
1 Samuel 8
New International Version (NIV)
Israel Asks for a King
8 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders.[a] 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
Then Samuel said to the Israelites, “Everyone go back to your own town.”
The Bible is a book, and “Libertarian” is a word that describes people. not books. The question here is can a person who describes themselves as an authentic Libertarian also be an authentic Christian, and the answer is obviously yes. Besides RPM, you have the notable examples of Laurance Vance and Gary North who is even a reconstructionist
The Catholic Church was able to condone slavery for many centuries, while also nominally following the teaching of Jesus. This isn’t entirely surprising when you consider that the Roman Empire depended heavily of slaves for just about all labour.
One could argue that gradually the Catholics phased out slavery and replaced it with serfdom, but that’s still to all intents and purposes one man owning another man. It took a long while for Catholics to stand up universally against the whole institution of both slavery and serfdom.
“The Catholic Church was able to condone slavery for many centuries, while also nominally following the teaching of Jesus.”
Many things are possible when you declare one group of people to be not human…. I don’t see why the failings of men impugn the teachings they did not uphold.
Where does it say in the Bible that slaves are not human?
The key word being “nominally”
I know it’s a difficult thing to phrase in an ideal way… of course if the Pope is infallible then the Pope’s interpretation of Jesus’ teaching is also infallible. I’m an Atheist and the last thing I want to do is take sides in a very old religious dispute, I’m well aware that some Christians feel that direct interpretation of the Bible is a better approach.
Getting back to the historical context, the opinion of the Catholic Church can’t exactly be fobbed off as insignificant either. It was the cornerstone of the Western world for about two thousand years.
Well, the Catholic Church no more defines Christianity than LewRockwell.com defines Libertarianism – man-made institutions may express aspects of a particular philosophy, but the philosophy is not defined by the institution.
It’s probably true that people who profess to be Christians generally fall along the pro-state end of the freedom axis, which is unfortunate. I think one of the main points of the NT is to push individuals out of a nation-oriented alignment (which is Tolstoy’s main thesis of The Kindgom of God Is Within You). All this to say, there are plenty of anti-state, freedom loving authentic Christians out there – RPM, Laurence Vance, Gary North, to name a few
Gary North is anti-state? That’s the biggest load of hooey I’ve heard in a long time.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/9691.cfm
‘The collectivist begins with the concept of the state as the final authority. Libertarian theory begins with the concept of the individual as the final authority.
In my view of economics, I begin with God as the final authority, but as I have spent the last 45 years attempting to show, the God of the Bible is overwhelmingly the defender of private property rights. This is encapsulated in the commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.” I keep contrasting this concept with the assertion of all modern welfare-state economists: “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.”‘
Not quite a ringing endorsement of the state there
Gary North is a high falutin Falangist. This nonsense about being against “the state” holds no water.
The word “liberty” and Gary North do not go together.
Who says you need to believe in self-ownership to be a libertarian? I also think you’re misunderstanding Christianity. It can ber very easy to bend it to fit an agenda.
Rothbard starts with that premise, but the central point of my post one does not need to accept it to be a Libertarian. A Christian may simply view themselves as God-owned rather than self-owned, and still arrive at the principles of non-aggression and homesteading
I have many, many disagreements with Murray Rothbard’s school of thought and its derivatives. He made his mistake when he tackled political philosophy from an economic perspective and wound garbling it from the beginning. I pretty much retain the ideas I learned about civics, the Enlightenment, and the Founding Fathers: liberalism, republicanism, consent of the governed, social contract theory, rule of law, separation of powers, popular sovereignty, and so forth.
Specifically, Rothbard took the wrong view of government: government is about rule. It exists to lay down the law, punish violations, and secure people’s rights (not just property rights). The “monopoly on the use of force”, which really isn’t an important topic to begin with, is a consequence of this instead of the other way around.
“The ‘monopoly on the use of force’, which really isn’t an important topic to begin with…”
Why is it not?
Because governance is about law and that Weberian definition is a sociological approach to looking at things. I also don’t entirely like that definition myself.
In more detail, the problem here is government is thought of as a commodity when it is not.
If you make a law and there’s a good reason based on economic theory to say that the law will result in failure or worse, then that’s a also good reason for politicians to pay attention to economists.
Case in question: the “War on Drugs”. Basic economic theory says that where strong and sustained demand exists, and where the mechanism of supply is well understood, a real supply will surely follow (I’m using these terms loosely, for anyone who wants to argue later about details). Billions of dollars later, the drugs continue to win the war, and the politicians take turns in demanding that we continue to bang our heads against the wall.
Looking at it from the other perspective, if economics is nothing more than understanding how an economy works, and if politicians insist in constantly meddling with the economy, then understanding economics requires understanding politics.
Personally, I think Rothbard got that bit right.
The inefficacy of the War on Drugs does not change the illegality of illicit substances, Tel (not that I’m defending it). You describe it as meddling with the economy, but is that really how most people see it? If the government made all criticism of it punishable by death then can it be said to be intervening in the economy? You make a mistake in believing all things would be inefficient, too, which entirely misses the point. Democracy and our political process is sloppy and inefficient, but a dictator would be able to make the trains run on time in that regard.
Samson, you feel weak, don’t you? Weak minded people venerate dictatorship.
property including but not limited to person, places and things.
Not sure what you’re saying or responding to here.
Scratch that last one because I now realize what you’re replying to. Still, I’m going to have to disagree since that view of law seems extremely naive.
“He made his mistake when he tackled political philosophy from an economic perspective and wound garbling it from the beginning.”
So politics and economics are mutually exclusive?
I’m inclined to say yes. Political philosophy is about policy and governance. Economics is about the study of economies. You can study political processes as economic processes, I suppose, but that’s working on a different level.
“social contract theory”.
What is that?
You’re kidding me, right?
I have yet to find my signature on said contract?
Heh. That was one of my favorite responses to the theory. Like I say below though, it’s more of a metaphor or a thought experiment than anything.
The minority’s lives shall be ruled by the majority for the sake of a metaphor.
A contract is an agreement, and the main advantage of writing it down is to ensure that the parties don’t conveniently start twiddling with the terms.
An unwritten agreement is perfectly workable so long as the parties all have the same idea about what’s expected, and they all trust each other.
Unfortunately, the people like Elizabeth Warren who bang on about their “Social Contract” also happen to have their own peculiar ideas about what the terms are. I happen to find it quite difficult to trust such people because they have not been upfront and honest with their dealings in the past. That’s when it’s better to get back to written stuff like a Constituion for example.
Here at Bob Murphy and numerous other sites , You are surrounded by hundreds of thousands who have revoked consent to be governed, now what?
Eh, it’s more like a metaphor than anything. I wasn’t posturing the existence of it. I was only giving a rundown of the ideas that are a part of my political thought in that post, so I making any positive philosophical assertions.
Ben,
God created man, but never, ever took ownership. We have explicit pact with God: we have free will and He will never take that from us. There is punishment for disobedience (Adam and Eve), but that’s only once.
After that all is punishment for transgressions. People were free to err. Yes, they paid for it, but they never were forced onto “the right path”.
And words of Jesus, even literally, never meant to be condemnation of violence. Of initiation – yes, but not on violence itself.
Nearly every comment in this thread referenced “catholic church”.
New Flash: There is more to Christianity than the catholic church. The catholic church went wrong long ago when they decided to worship a manmade creed rather than God.
Just because they are the biggest does not make them correct. This logic? would make government the worlds best organization if size was everything…
Bob,
Doesn’t Christianity sort of demand you speak up, even at the risk of being denounced? I mean, back in the days of the Roman Empire, Christians would literally allow themselves to be eaten by lions rather than deny their faith.
You mean to tell me that we have tons of legitimate Christian libertarians running around out there hiding their faith solely because they’re worried that some atheists might make fun of them? Really?
No, don’t be a Christian. IT is a choice. Can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Not “hiding their faith,” but avoiding unnecessary, unproductive conflict. There is little to be gained from theological debate between devout Christians and atheists. Christians don’t fear being the object of ridicule so much as they are disinterested rehashing tired arguments.
Andrew,
Not really disinterested. There is one-way flow of thought in the debate. That is – most of the other side is not interested in trying to understand… It’s all about set ways and “those unwashed orthodox radicals”.
Atheist exert much energy attempting to disprove something they claim does not exist. I try not to swing at ghost seeing how I don’t believe in them.
Ummm. I am a Libertarian Christian, admittedly I am a Conservative Libertarian Christian, but all that means is I believe in natural consequence to action and that there should be places in the Social Contract that accounts for this that codifies response to said ‘consequence’.
If the consequence to action were natural, then codification would not be required.
Sounds like a case for compulsory gun ownership.
They have that in Switzerland.
Lots of gun owners must mean there is rampant crime. Or else it’s a fluke. Totally random.
I AM THE LAW!!!!
No, the law is non-aggression. Don’t initiate force.
What happens in response is a different issue.
I find the NAP to be full of hot air. I wouldn’t say its circular, but it’s rather simplistic.
So that’s why you believe it justified for you to be robbed or killed.
Nope. I don’t believe that. You don’t get to play word games with me, MF. With your type the reaction is always “Oh, you don’t believe in the non-aggression principle? You must support murder and robbery and all other sorts of nasty stuff, huh?” and it’s rubbish.
Rubbish? I thought you said it was “full of hot air”?
Perhaps you can make up your mind.
Of course you don’t actually believe that the NAP is full of hot air. You only want it to be viewed as such when it suits your interests. When treating the NAP as full of hot air threatens your interests, then all of a sudden you want the NAP to be viewed positively.
Word games? Just taking what you’re saying and going with it. If you don’t like it, change your course.
Major_Freedom said: Rubbish? I thought you said it was “full of hot air”?
My response: Yes, you’re counterargument is rubbish and the NAP is hot air because it is presented by redefining words in a self-serving manner.
Major_Freedom said: Perhaps you can make up your mind.
My response: I’ve had my mind made up a long time before this discussion, MF.
Major_Freedom said: Of course you don’t actually believe that the NAP is full of hot air.
My response: No, I really do.
Major_Freedom says: You only want it to be viewed as such when it suits your interests. When treating the NAP as full of hot air threatens your interests, then all of a sudden you want the NAP to be viewed positively.
My response: Here’s your argument in a simplified form: “You’re only against people doing bad things when they’re bad things.”.
Major_Freedom says: Word games? Just taking what you’re saying and going with it. If you don’t like it, change your course.
My response: Your whole damn post played with words, son.
“My response: Here’s your argument in a simplified form: “You’re only against people doing bad things when they’re bad things.”.”
Close, but not quite.
You’re only against people violating the NAP when you’re the victim.
When you seek to benefit from violations of the NAP, then the NAP becomes “full of hot air.”
You’re self-serving, but you don’t like it when others are self-serving, because you interpret the concept of “self-serving” in others as inherently antagonistic to your own interests, because you want to self-serve at the expense of others through the violation of the “full of hot air” NAP.
What you call “word play” from me is really you realizing that your intention to play with words is more difficult. You want to be the only one to play with words. So when you see others seemingly playing with words, you get upset. Sort of like when one burglar gets upset when he sees another burglar encroach on his territory.
It’s OK. I know you don’t really think the NAP is full of hot air. It is after all what you fall back on, when your interests are at stake due to others aggressing against you.
I also think I know what’s really full of hot air, and it isn’t the NAP.
Nah, you’re just a petty leech who hates non-aggression for others, but wants it for himself.
I can’t tell if you’re a sycophant or someone with his head shove too far up his rear end.
Leeches like you are easily rattled.
A little poking and prodding that encourages some self-reflection. Most of the time people like you hate yourselves, and so you generally react to self-reflection with outward vitriol and hostility.
You were probably abused in your life.
Wow. Psychologizing just like Mises. Two thumbs up.
You’re welcome.
Don’t you loathe the fact that you are not a dictator?
I’m a Socialist Libertarian Syndicalist Atheist Muslim Objectivist Unitarian.
Please.
I’m a cat dog. Both cat and dog, 100%, at the same time.
I am a square circle.
I am A/not-A.
I like eating my cake and having it, too.
What do you do, Mr. Conservative Libertarian Christian man?
You need to talk to Bob about the Nicene creed.
Boo, no not a creed. Boo.
Wow. I know most Christians are ignorant about Christianity, but this is still impressive. Like saying the US constitution is not part of U s law.
Show me in the Bible, any of the creeds.
You can’t and won’t find them.
Manmade garbage.
I suppose the Apostles creed is okay because it does not attempt to create anything new but the other 2 creeds are bad news.
I can show you just as many examples Of Jesus claiming to not be God as you can show me examples of Jesus claiming to be God. I can even show you a few more. Don’t we all make the mistake, at times, of thinking we are God?
We may have been created in the image of God, but God was not created in the image of man.
Humble yourself and think about it.
US Constitution is the ultimate law. It is where all other laws were suppose to originate.
Are you saying the manmade trinity and manmade eucharist are where all other Biblical teaching originate from? Wow, I never realized how messed Catholics and protestants are. It is worse than I had previously realized.
You wont get to heaven eating a wafer, slamming some grape juice and worshipping a God that is only a man.
Are you saying the manmade trinity and manmade eucharist are where all other Biblical teaching originate from?
The Eucharist (conceived as the body of Christ) is clearly derived from gospel accounts of the Last Supper. The doctrine of the Trinity is also (though less obviously) based on the Bible. Jesus clearly says He and the Father are one, though I grant that it’s harder to pin down why the Holy Spirit as God also. (In fact I asked that very question of more mature Christians several years ago.)
Gamble,how does any of what you say suggest that most Christians subscribe to the creed, or that that its not a creed?
As for your claim the trinity has no basis in the bible I am closer to you on that but it’s a minority opinion amongst actual Christians, such as Bob.
Hi Bob and Ken,
We are on the same side, it is not everyday I am in the presence of Libertarian Christians.
Bob you said Jesus claimed to be God, He did, a few times. However Jesus also said He was not God. There are other places in the Bible that also say God and Jesus are not the same. I will provide these at the end of my post.
Let me establish 1 clear fact. There is no place in the Bible that comes right out and says Jesus IS Spirit IS God. There is no 1 place that explains the trinity and there is no place in the Bible that says any of the 3 major creeds. These creeds are mans attempt to summaries what they understood of the Bible. Many people think the Nicene creed can be found on such and such page of the Bible, it cant be found because the creeds came after the Bible was complete.
Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God.
John 14:28 My Father is greater than I.
John 20:17 I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
1 Corinthians 11:3 The head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Colossians 3:1 Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
1 Peter 3:21-22 Jesus Christ: who is … on the the right hand of God.
Hi Bob and Ken,
Regarding the last supper which is actually Matthew 26: 17-30 ( also in Mark,Luke,John)
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Again Paul mentions this event in 1 Corinthians 11: 17-34
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
This is why my family, before every meal, remember the Blood and Body of Jesus. It is a good thing to be reminded of salvation daily.
Gamble family supper prayer.
” Dear God we come to You in the name of Jesus Christ and thank You for this meal you have provided. We thank You for the clothes on our backs, the shelter above our heads. We ask that You please bless this meal. We eat this food and drink this drink in remembrance of Jesus Christ.
Amen.
WOW. I just found this quote.
Ludwig von Mises Since the third century Christianity has always served simultaneously those who supported the social order and those who wished to overthrow it. . . . It is the same today: Christianity fights both for and against Socialism. Socialism p. 378 Christianity
Believing in a 6000 year old Earth is perfectly consistent with the libertarian ideology.
“The Bible is clear on three legal principles: (1) monetary debasement is wrong (Isaiah 1:22); (2) multiple indebtedness, which is the basis of fractional reserve banking, must not be allowed (Exodus 22:26) ; (3) weights and measures must not be tampered with (Lev. 19:36). All three are violated by modern economic policy.” – Gary North
Well, then, believing in a 6000 year old earth is apparently also perfectly consistent with the progressive ideology;
http://sojo.net/about-us/mission-statement
The age of the earth and or humanity has nothing to do with Libertarianism.
I can be a 200 year old Libertarian or a 200 billion year old Libertarian.
Yup. There goes another guy trying to bend the Bible to suit his needs.
Bob,
You’re a libertarian of the anarchist variety. In some of your other blog posts you talked about the judges that were in the Bible. If you were to adopt that system wouldn’t that make you a kritarchist rather than an anarchist?
Good thing Judges were pre Savior.
I’m not familiar with the reference.
Pre-savior is a Christian way of saying “before Jesus”.
I see that you enjoy playing with words.
No, nobody is playing with words.
Pre Savior is pre Jesus. Jesus is the Savior. If you take time to understand the story, you will realize the story provides the solution making most government unnecessary.
Christianity is on the side of Libertarianism.
You cant be a Christian and a lover of big government. If you claim to be both, I know 1 thing about you, You never read your Bible.
What twisted definition of “big government” do you have? Haven’t you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Is someone forgetting about theocracy here?
The Bible instructs the opposite of man made theocracy.
You are supposed to be governed by The Holy Spirit.
Individuals can say they are whatever they want…when push comes to shove…or when a vote in Congress is on the line no one ever chooses their politics over their religion. Ron Paul was one of the few who recognized that the best way to defend his religious freedom was to limit the growth of government. Most Christians have a protectionist attitude when it comes to codifying their religious beliefs through legislation.
@Jahfre Fire Eater
“Most Christians have a protectionist attitude when it comes to codifying their religious beliefs through legislation.”
Not sure what you mean? Maybe there aren’t real Christians?
Anyways, you are friends with that crazy lady whom made a deal with the Devil when she sold out prop101, are you not?
Ahhh those dastardly notrew Christians. Every time you hear about some delporable act you are told notrew christians do that. Nasty bunch.
I am not sure what you have heard but the Bible does talk about wolves in sheep’s clothing, false Christians, anti Christ.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 – For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. (Read More…)
2 Timothy 3:5 – Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Matthew 7:21-23 – Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (
Matthew 7:15 – Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
The Bible also gives explanation of a “real” Christian. The Bible says you can tell by their fruits.
Galatians 5:22-23
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
The Bible also says the wide path is made up of many and they are not going to Heaven, the narrow path is few and they will go to Heaven.
Matthew 7:13-14
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
However the issue is what Fire Eater said, “Most Christians have a protectionist attitude when it comes to codifying their religious beliefs through legislation.”
I am not sure what he meant and how that would apply to a Libertarian Christian such as myself? Maybe you can explain what he was saying?
He meant that christians have a track record of passing laws codifying elements of their faith.
Which is not smart because this assumes Christians hold the keys of State.
God fearing Christians should not give control to anybody or entity other than God. See 1 Sam 8.
And there you’d get theocracy.
Your mistake is assuming that governments (“states”, as you call them) are special entities that exist outside of the world when they are really de facto entities. For example, the Church in the Middle Ages was definitely a government.
“And there you’d get theocracy.”
Samson, that doesn’t necessarily follow. Gamble’s point is that if everyone ONLY “gave control” to their God, then that would imply the individual cannot be controlled ON EARTH by any other individual.
That implies anarchy, not theocracy.
Now, if we’re talking about corrupted interpretations of that passage, (notwithstanding the fact that it contradicts Romans 13), where lies, deceit and ignorance reign supreme, then a theocracy would almost certainly develop on the basis of that ideology.
In reply to Major_Freedom: Yes, I suppose that would look like some form of anarchism, but trying to call a No True Scotsman is just bogus.
See the Middle Ages.
I am talking about TODAY.
No Christian in his/her right mind would assume the State is operated by fellow Christians who follow Biblical principles.
See Lawrence Vance.
Today? Today? Have you forgotten about the late Jerry Falwell? What about Gary North, a man who claims he’s a libertarian but is really just an American Falangist in disguise? Of course they don’t think the government operates according to Christian principles otherwise Dominionists like them wouldn’t be campaigning to change federal/state/local laws or looking to nullify federal court rulings.
The best way to defend religious freedom is with the First Amendment and lawsuits.
Isn’t it all religious freedom?
Isn’t what all religious freedom?
Everything in your life. It is all part of your belief system. Everybody has a religion.
Why not just say everything is politics, then? Or aesthetics? Or literary theory? When you make words so expansive they become meaningless.
So when the First mentions religion, what is it referencing?
Samson Corwell,
I will start the discussion down here because there was no reply button available beside your comment. Maybe I am doing it all wrong? Well anyways, here is what you said.
“Today? Today? Have you forgotten about the late Jerry Falwell? What about Gary North, a man who claims he’s a libertarian but is really just an American Falangist in disguise? Of course they don’t think the government operates according to Christian principles otherwise Dominionists like them wouldn’t be campaigning to change federal/state/local laws or looking to nullify federal court rulings.”
I know who Jerry Farwell was and who Gary North is however I don’t think I am making myself clear.
God is a jealous God. A Bible reading, God fearing Christian would stay as far away from the State as possible seeing how the State is from the world and not from God.
James 4:4,5
4 You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us?
Samson Corwell
“And there you’d get theocracy.”
No, if you read the New Testament and several place in the OT, you relies Christianity is incredibly personal and driven by the Holy Spirit.
No theocracy required. A manmade theocracy would impede your Walk.
Alls you need is simple Liberty to be a real NT Christian.
Romans 13?
What about Romans 13?
Major Freedom,
Let us put away the hysteria and anti Christian sentiment and pretend for a moment I am giving you a job description. You are a new government employee.
Please read the following job description and then explain to me what specific task you have been assigned?
13 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
Taxation kills your anarchist theory.
Just read the text and tell me what the job description is. What specifically does the above text instruct government to do? What are the job responsibility’s?
This part does: “Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”
Heh. The Catholic Church and the Vatican would beg to differ.
I am not Catholic and have desire to argue their position.
>Alls you need is simple Liberty to be a real NT Christian.
Not to criticize Christians or Christianity in general, but I’ve seen a lot of versions of “simple Liberty” that just don’t seem very much like liberty.
Define Liberty?
The right to personal freedom.
Including economic freedom?
I just say “personal freedom”. This theoretical split between freedoms aggravates me to no end. I also happen to think “economic freedom” is a red herring at times wherein people trade their freedom for prosperity.
“an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. ”
Not a road builder, not an abolisher of poverty, not a…………………………………………………….
” The only responsibility of government is to protect against force, theft and fraud.” Sounds like something a libertarian would say.
The “force and fraud” bit has always seemed too simple to me.
Force, fraud and theft are the same, violence.
Why cant life be simple?
More importantly, The Bible gives 1 example of when murder is okay. If an evil man comes in your home under the cover of darkness, it is okay to murder him.
This puts Romans 13 into proper context.
Romans 13 is an accusation and indictment as much as it is anything else. You have to understand what Paul had went through with government as was about to go through with government. They did eventually kill Paul, were they simply avenging evil as Romans 13 says?
Paul use to be a ruthless, sadistic tax collector, then Saul had the famous “Road to Damascus conversion.”
Paul was not cuddling up to government, he was laying down the gauntlet. HE was giving humanity the ultimate example of a “good government.”
He said God would only partake in an extremely limited, extremely righteous government and his ministers would attend to this function continuously.
Any actions contrary to The Romans 13 non aggression mandate, are simply not Gods government and furthermore are not my rulers or authority.
Romans 13 does more to limit government than any other effort.
If I snatched a wallet that someone left on the table, then I haven’t committed any violence. It is theft, however.
What if I was sitting at the next table over?
Violence involves physical contact.
But what if I was sitting at the next table over and you tried to swipe my wallet?