26
Jan
2014
“Why Libertarians Need God”
Dr. Jay Richards argues that the core “libertarian” principles make the most sense within a theistic worldview. Watch to find out why this is and why it matters. This presentation was given at the first IFWE [Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics] Coffee House Lecture on Nov. 7, 2013.
For my case that fighting for liberty makes more sense from a theistic framework, see this.
Reason and Moral Truth are libertarian values? It goes downhill from there.
But I have a question about this statement from your article, Bob: “If Ayn Rand were locked in a room with the North Korean leader, could she really convince him that the value of his own life would be enhanced by refraining from looting others?”
Why, if Billy Graham [or choose your own religious figure, that one is just the first famous one to come to mind] were locked in a room with the North Korean leader, would he convince him that his immortal soul is in peril if he continues to loot others?
Oy. I followed only part of the downhill slide.
But I have a completely different question for Bob about his article. You capitalized LORD. Why?
Now don’t get me wrong. Orthographic freedom is a ‘materialist value’. But conventionally that has significance. In this case it undercuts the generality of your argument.
video is worth watching for the rhetorical tricks.
I think any body wanting to overcome the addiction called State, needs a higher power…
I do not care what you call the higher power just acknowledge that there is one…
How about this in place of God. There is a natural order to all things. There are laws, rules, and methods. which rather than being overcome exist independent of our perception of them. We may uncover them, but the knowledge that we ‘uncover’ was there from the beginning and will continue to persist regardless of our own… perception of them.
Now I do believe in God, very much so in point of fact. I believe in Him and know He is there because there are methods to ‘know’ Him.
As far as libertarian values. The Christian faith is predicated on them. Did God not grant Adam and Eve the ‘choice’ to eat of the fruit? Does the Messiah force others to come unto Him? Did not the God of Jacob at the time of Ezekiel tell the population to cut ties with Egypt and return to His worship rather than embrace money as their God seeing as he had handed the keys to the region to Babylon? He told them what their ‘choice’ would bring them yet they went the way of death rather than life.
No Religion teaches that consequence and choice are invariably linked in deep and forming ways.
God is, you can find Him if you seek Him. Seek and ye shall find, Knock and it shall be opened unto you.
I have found God and have been the happier for it. DO not get caught up in the minutia of the reasons why when men wrote things down and in their weakness wrote things you cannot understand six thousand years later. Rather seek the part about how to know God. Then you can ask Him about those parts rather than attempting to analyze them with ignorance. And yes if you attempt to dissect the History of the Jews and have not bothered to do so understanding the world as it was you are ignorant. It is okay to be ignorant, since that simply means you have an opportunity to humble yourself and learn.
“As far as libertarian values. The Christian faith is predicated on them.”
The NT is not consistent on this point
“DO not get caught up in the minutia of the reasons why when men wrote things down and in their weakness wrote things you cannot understand six thousand years later.”
Guess consistency isn’t a virtue.
Hi Major Freedom,
Could you please list the reasons why you say the NT is not consistently libertarian? Maybe it is a concept of specific passage?
Romans 13 is probably the most clear cut example of anti-libertarianism.
I don’t know, I thought Romans 13 makes it clear the only responsibility of government is to punish evil, and be of NO terror to good works. Furthermore they should commend good rather than punish good with something like taxes. Also Greek translation tells me authorities actually means powers, so in the case of America, The United States Constitution is the highest power, which directs all authority back to the people with certain limitations.
It can be very complicated, and Paul, actually Saul, who was an expert persecutor of Christians prior to his road to Damascus conversion. Every teacher of the Bible insist The Bible be read by line but when it comes to R13, the somehow see only 3 or 4 words. Submit, Authority Taxes, Caesar. Also Christian teachers , when teaching other scripture teaches us, well that was not literal, but when it comes to R13, oh Boy it was literal and there is no room for tongue and check, etc. Finally Christian teacher mandate you double check, that is, prove scripture with scripture, but when it comes to R13, it is somehow magically a stand alone verse that is above reproach. There is sonly 1 other area that affirms the Statist interpretation of R13 yet there is 50 areas that teach an anti statist view point. Heck, Jesus was born in rebellion to authority and died in rebellion to authority.
I think you and many others fail to comprehend just how thoroughly the statist brainwashing had infected and afflicted humanity, the church and their horrid interpretation of R13 is no exception. Don’t forget where Church teachers get their degrees and tax exemption status.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/romans_13.htm
http://anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
http://www.amazon.com/ROMANS-13-TRUE-MEANING-SUBMISSION/dp/146287018X
http://www.freemansperspective.com/anti-government-religions/
You’re just using the flawed “we are the government’ interpretation, which is not in the Bible, but is a more modern confusion.
A call of a requirement to pay taxes to the government, and to submit to and obey government, is anti-libertarian.
I see all the lines, and in those lines, there are anti-libertarian passages.
Like I said above, the Bible is inconsistent. You asked for an example of anti-libertarian passages in the NT, so I showed you. You can’t then turn this back on me and say it’s the only thing I’m looking at. That’s prepostrous.
That’s right, it doesn’t say what it says because I’m stupid. Attack the mind if all else fails.
Every morning I do a flip the Bible open to any page, quick read.
Today was NT Ephesians 4: 28.
28 He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
Stealing implies property. Now you have overcome the first and largest statist hurdle.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say when people get together and vote, it is okay to take another’s property.
You must interpret Romans 13 with the full conviction stealing is not okay. Even anti or pre messianic Jews are commanded not to steal, Exodus 20:15.
You mean I have to interpret an anti-libertarian passage as if it is a libertarian passage.
It IS Biblical interpretation MF.
Every morning you likely flip to one half of a pair of mutually inconsistent passages.
I guess you have to choose which half to follow.
Hey MF,
YOu make the claim R13 is antilib but you do nothing to justify your position.
To me, R13 is the most libertarian statement I have ever heard. Paul make sit painfully obvious the only reponsibiltiy of government is to punish force, theft and fraud. Sure R13 is not anarchy or pure sefl government. But it iis about as close as you will get in this lifetime.
Why are you alentaing Christinas? You love of atheism, hatred of Christ has convinced you that you do not need the Christian voting bloc and are willing to throw every election from here on out, ultimate gaining nothing and wasting an entire life time.
Last time I checked the pendulum is swinging towards state.
Keep it up MF.
“YOu make the claim R13 is antilib but you do nothing to justify your position.”
That’s because it’s pretty self-explanatory. It’s literally explaining and advoating an anti-libertarian ethic.
“To me, R13 is the most libertarian statement I have ever heard.”
Gamble TRIPLE downs! Outstanding. Positive advocacies of submission to government, duty to pay taxes, this ladies and gentlemen is “the most libertAHAHAHAHAHA
I can’t even finish that…
Gamble, sorry, but damn, you crazy.
Okay, I am saying that the ‘Bible’ was not (I know this is a shock) written by God, rather it was written by men that knew God. The problem with writing is that no matter how hard you attempt to limit it your personal understanding of God and the world will therefore be mixed in with that of ‘God’ so when you ask for consistency the irony is that unless you ‘know’ God you cannot understand the consistent nature of God.
What these men did was indicate that there is a ‘God’ and that you can get answers from Him.
That is the main issue right there. As far as what is written in the Bible some is of God some is of man. You are correct that it is not ‘Consistent’ but that does not mean that what is in it is not correct.
for instance the founders of the United States would in my opinion be saddened and maddened by the mess we have made of their words. So it is with God.
How does a person prove they know God? Other than of course telling you?
How can you know God is consistent on the one hand, if on the other hand you also argue that by the nature of your own mind you are not be able to do so?
What you are describing is not an “irony”, but rather just another inconsistency.
Are you saying reality itself is not consistent with itself? That’s the only way of stating the notion that inconsistencies can nevertheless be “correct.”
Another way of saying the same thing:
For a statement to be correct, it means it has fidelity with reality as it is. If reality has inconsistencies, then reality must be inconsistent with itself. You’re claiming A is not A.
For some reason you forgot to mention that Adam and Eve were punished for making that choice.
You have some reading to do:
Invitation to a Stoning
http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning
And for some reason you forgot to mention the New Testament and the Saving Grace of Jesus Christ…
No there are consequences to action. Period. Just as stepping off of a cliff will predicate the inevitable fall.
Innocent, meet Gamble. Gamble, Innocent.
Ken B ,
I don’t follow you, come again?
I’m suggesting you two disagree on this point.
God must have known they would eat the fruit when God chose to put it there, so all consequences of all actions trace back to God and no other.
“Only if we believe in some higher power, and moreover one that has constructed the very fabric of the universe to ensure that good will triumph over evil, does our struggle make any sense.” There is the question of whether it *should* make sense.
As civilisations get larger there is a problem of “free loading” or cheaters. Cheating in small groups does not work well because everyone knows you, and you will be punished or shunned. In large societies it is possible to get away with cheating. You identify this in your analysis of Mises’ reasoning: “He didn’t prove that everyone should be moral and law-abiding. Rather, Mises simply proved that everyone would be better off if everyone were moral and law-abiding.”
So how did we arrive at a society where most people most of the time are moral and law abiding? I believe that religion has been an important part of this. Belief in a knowledgeable deity keeps people on the straight and narrow. It is this belief that helped large societies to form. Societies with a cohesive religion were able to grow larger and more successful. It says nothing at all about the truth of these religions.
This is combined with our small-group altruistic tendencies, which are pro-survival for small groups. Yet these alone are not sufficient to sustain a large society. As you say, “Yet if he were a rational egoist, he would recognize those biological traits as dangerously inappropriate”. So a large society of rational egoists is unlikely to be successful, some other approach is needed to keep people cooperative.
One way is to continue the belief in deities. Another way is the development of a morality that results in people generally sticking to the rules without a belief in a deity.
This seems to be working reasonable well for the largely secular Northern European countries, so I do have hope for this approach. Any society that emphasises only individual success will be doomed to eventual failure as the rational members continue to defect. To the extent that libertarianism emphasises individual liberty as the highest political end, it does seem to have a problem.
I think if he used matched county pairs to account for spatial heterogeneity and state time trends he’d find that the relationship between God and libertarianism is closer to zero.
This is only for modest levels of belief in God of course.
That reminds me, I need to email Meer and West!
Now, do libertarians need the Christian God specifically? Or will any old god suffice? Your writing seems to imply that theism in general is more important than Christianity specifically, at least as far as libertarianism is concerned. Was this intentional?
Attempting to ground Libertarianism on faith rather than reason (no, they are compatible) UNDERCUTS Libertarianism.
For what if someone had faith in an all powerful God that tells them “Thou shalt go out and kill for me”, or “Thou shalt not be a libertarian”?
There would be no way to apodictically refute his beliefs USING faith in God. He has his faith in God, you have your faith in God, and from each of your perspectives the other is wrong, and there is no Rational means to settle the dispute.
Murphy, it is not valid response to this to say that this person just doesn’t believe in “the right” God according to a specific religion, or specific relgious text, that happens to be pro-liberty. For you said “God” without qualification.
I suspect I know why. If you had said “Libertarianism needs X specific passages from the New Testament in the Christian faith’s main text”, then it would have been more clear that Libertarianism is an Earthly human ethic, not one based on a generic concept of an all powerful all knowing creator of the universe.
Not only that, but theists cannot even advance their beliefs without contradicting themselves, or using “attack of the feeble human mind” premises that undercut their own beliefs.
Libertarianism needs Rationalism, which makes no claims to whether God exists.
To over come fear, you need faith. Most people are afraid to exchange the known state for the unknown libertarianism.
Rugged individualism is an impossible sale so until you explain why free markets are more compassionate, nurturing and supportive than state, they wont buy.
“To over come fear, you need faith. Most people are afraid to exchange the known state for the unknown libertarianism.”
I do not have fath in God, and yet I am not afraid of dying, nor am I afraid of libertarianism.
In my mind faith makes fear worse.
“Rugged individualism is an impossible sale so until you explain why free markets are more compassionate, nurturing and supportive than state, they wont buy.”
That statements depends on people’s premises.
Major,
I was referring to the voters, not you. I am just trying to be pragmatic. People are scared and people want something for nothing. These raw emotions tend to override rational.
God has help me to overcome my fear of the unknown and my desire to steal, thereof I no longer need any government…
OK, well, you did said “you” without qualification. But if fear of voters is different from my fears, and what ultimately distinguishes voters from me is ideas, then all that is needed is to change ideas.
Pragmatism contradicts itsself. Pragmatism doesn’t work.
Rothbard explains:
First, the trouble with pragmatism, and especially anarcho-pragmatism, is that it doesn’t work. And since pragmatists believe that the only truth is whatever “works” that settles that (setting aside such deep problems as the meaning of “work”, work for “what!” etc.)
Take, for example, the severe criticisms that Jorge Amador, the guru of anarcho-pragmatism, has made of the Bergland-Lewis Presidential campaign, in his organ The Pragmatist. Amador’s critique is that the LP was (a) too gradualist, and also (b) ideological. In other words, his preferred campaign would be radical anarchist to the hilt, and yet non-ideological. That is, all talk of moral principles or rights would be tossed aside. Not only that: we could no longer call the State an organization of a criminal ruling class, because “crime” itself is a moral and natural-law concept, and presumes immoral criminals ripping off innocent victims. So what would an Amadorean LP campaigner talk about? He would confine himself to demonstrating the pragmatic virtues of the radical anarchist alternative.
But this is a tall order indeed. In fact, a virtually impossible one. The pragmatic radical anarchist is faced immediately with powerful critiques from pragmatic statists. He can show, for example, that anarchy would increase production, yield a higher standard of living, etc., in the long run. But in the short run, lots of the privileged, subsidized, or monopolistic would be cast adrift. All these short-run and maybe intermediate-run problems could only be offset by vague future benefits. But why, pragmatically, should everyone prefer the long-run to the short-run? What about the high- time preference people, who thus challenge the Amadorean: “Look here, fella. I know the pragmatic benefits I’m getting from the current system. And I know, too, the headaches, the disruptions, the losses that I and lots of others will suffer during the lengthy ‘transition’ period. Even if you’ve convinced me that eventually I might benefit, these benefits are too chancy and too long-run for me to want to risk it!” And if the average person cannot be sold on radical immediatist anarchism, a fortiori the criminal ruling class, those net beneficiaries of the State, they who might well be losers even in the long-run, certainly won’t be convinced. At best, the Amadorsymp will say: “Well, I admit this anarchism sounds pretty good. But pragmatically, to ease the transition and minimize the costs that even you admit, let’s move toward the ideal very, very gradually!’ And we are back, willy- nilly, to the Republican or Democrat Party, the master “gradualists” of us all.
It is no accident, then, that Democrats and Republicans proudly call themselves “pragmatists!’ Sure, they believe in freedom, in peace, in free markets, in all the goodies, but these goals have to be approached, they tell us, piecemeal, by the groping push-and-pull of the democratic consensus. And we are back hip deep in the status quo. “Radical pragmatism” of any sort, whether anarcho or Khomeini or whatever, is virtually a contradiction in terms.
But this is only the beginning of our story. For it is also no accident that never in history has pragmatism inspired any sort of radical or revolutionary movement for social change. For who in hell would join a radical minority movement, and commit him- or herself for life to social obloquy and a marginal existence, for the sake of 20 % more bathtubs, or 15 % more candy bars? Who will man the barricades, either physically or spiritually, for more peanuts or Pepsi? Look at all radical or revolutionary movements of the 20th century, whether they be Communist or fascist or Khomeiniite. Did they struggle and move mountains for a few more goods and services, for what we used to call “bathtub economics?” Hell no, they moved mountains and made history out of a deep moral passion that would not be denied. What moves men and women and changes history is ideology, moral values, deep beliefs and principles.
It is no coincidence, then, that even in the libertarian movement, the people who have stuck to it over the years have been almost exclusively the believers in rights and possessors of moral passion. The libertarian pragmatists, what the Marxists call “economists”, have generally hived off to good jobs and have forgotten any movement concerns. (Alan Greenspan? Provided he was ever a genuine libertarian. – J.Z.) And, by their lights, why not? Why not let the crazy ideologues worry about the movement and about liberty? The pragmatists, as usual, will just take what comes.
Anarcho-Pragmatism then, simply doesn’t work. It cannot push radicalism among the public, and it cannot build a radical movement. All it can do is subvert, weaken, and, if unchecked, even destroy the libertarian movement which the anarcho-pragmatists claim they are striving to strengthen and promote. Objectively, anarcho-pragmatists can only function as wreckers of libertarianism. And since moral passion and ideology work and pragmatism doesn’t, the anarcho-pragmatists have a pragmatic obligation either to convert to natural rights, or, at the very least, to pretend to convert and then use natural rights and ideology as a weapon with which to build an anarchist movement. Objectively, then, and on their own terms, the anarcho-pragmatists have a solemn duty to surrender, to shut up about their doctrines and abandon the field.
People are scared and people want something for nothing. These raw emotions tend to override rational.
God has help me to overcome my fear of the unknown and my desire to steal, thereof I no longer need any government…
Hey Major,
You just keep on winning elections with your unwavering principle and ideas, okay…
Winning elections is not the standard of changing the world for the better.
Sure the Communists made history, being the greatest murderers of all time. I fail to see the attraction, gradualism not only achieves more in the long run, but it also kills less people in the short run.
Anyhow, the chickens of US statism are coming home to roost. Obamacare has only just got started, I’m confident the US people will be thinking differently once they see the ugly side of the state. Just this morning I was reading someone trying to explain that a freezing winter is caused by Global Warming… people will be bursting out laughing when they read that.
MF contends that faith undercuts libertarianism. Bob contends that libertarianism only makes sense if based on faith. They can both be right, but only if libertarianism doesn’t make sense.
Libertarians believe initiating violence against people is morally justified.
Harold believes initiating violence against people is morally justified.
Of course libertarianism wouldn’t make sense to Harold.
I didn’t mention my beliefs, just squaring your statement with Bobs.
But why would it not make sense to me if we both believe initiating violence is morally justified?
Typo: Libertarians believe initiating violence against people is [NOT] morally justified.
Hi Harold,
What part of “Live and let live” does not make sense?
The real problem with todays world is rampant egoism. Because of this people can barely communicate. I think the real collapse will be one of communication and cooperation and then all the other dominos will fall in rapid succession…
The problem isn’t egoism, it’s misguided egoism.
You wanting to abolish rampant egoism in others is your own egoism speaking.
After all, you’re not trying to abolish rampant egoism in order to make yourself worse off, are you?
I am not trying to abolish anything., not even State. When state shrinks enough, I will let you know.
In the meantime, egoism is making it difficult to communicate, try it sometime, you will see what I mean.
No I am not talking about Ayn Rand and self interest. I am talking about clinical egoism. The kind that blinds people so much so, they can’t listen, they are never wrong, unbendable, inflexible, the ultimate authority in all things. Wannabe God.
They can both be right if a full description of the universe happens to require a plurality of viewpoints. But that would be the whole point of individual initiative wouldn’t it?
Murphy, your solution in the final paragraph doesn’t succeed in overcoming the problems you laid out in the main body.
Calling evil good isn’t a solution of solving evil.
Not everyone can be convinced God exists.
Even if they were, libertarianism does not necessarily follow.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/soup-kitchens-caused-the-great-depression-aff-edition/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body
Working on it, Jason, thanks.
Okay I just read that article. I can’t say what happened then but I can say this about today.
Tax code and other intervention is making the poor, poor. Welfare comes nowhere close to offsetting the institutionalized skimming and property destruction ( poor peoples property) that takes place everyday.
I hate todays Republican talking points and think they are standing on a cliff, peeing into the wind, with their hate the poor mentality. Republicans have used the poor to satisfy their intellectual sloth.
I would strongly advise a third paradigm. A rebuttal that refutes Krugman and republicans.
Bob, I strongly suspect Krugman reads your blog regularly.
I believe he is giving a shout out to LK to encourage him, after seeing him be demolished day in and day out on this blog, perhaps hoping that it will light a fire under LK to keep up the attack.
I believe that’s why he mentions DeLong, Yglesias, and other Keynesian oriented market haters who are consistently wrong.
Bob, I strongly suspect Krugman reads your blog regularly.
Actually MF I really don’t think he does. It’s possible DeLong does (since he pounced on me just as I was losing my bet to David Henderson, as if he had set his calendar or something), but after the Great Debt Debate I’m almost positive Krugman doesn’t. Regardless of what Ken B., Gene Callahan, and Daniel Kuehn may say, there is no way Krugman would have written the follow-up posts on debt and grandkids that he did, had he seen my Excel thingie. To be clear, Krugman wouldn’t have blinked an eye or retracted a single semicolon, but he would have shielded himself from his fallacy in further posts, had he seen the problem.
No fallacy for him to shield himself from.
FWIW I would be astounded if Krugman read the blog though, considering his opinion of Austrianism. He does not consider it an alternative worth thinking about, unlike say market monetarism.
According to what he SAYS.
“Regardless of what Ken B., Gene Callahan, and Daniel Kuehn may say, there is no way Krugman would have written the follow-up posts on debt and grandkids that he did, had he seen my Excel thingie. ”
Maybe he missed that particular project?
Recently I saw Krugman write something to the effect of “I am often accused of being contradictory”. Seriously.
Krugman writes:
“Don’t say that it’s obvious, that labor would get cheaper and more would be employed. As Keynes pointed out, this makes sense for an individual worker or group of workers, but not if everyone takes a wage cut and — as one would expect — prices also fall. In that case, the relative price of labor hasn’t fallen, so there is no reason for employment to rise.”
Keynes was wrong about this because the only mechanism by which he could imagine falling wage rates and prices achieving full employment, is through an increased purchasing power of money which supposedly encourages people to spend more, which then supposedly stimulates employment..
Krugman is trapped in the Keynesian framework, so of course he would be unable to consider actual market mechanisms that tend to eliminate unemployment. He is ignoring what Austrians have already pointed out regarding a fall in wage rates:
If a fall in wage rates is accompanied by a fall in prices, this does not imply that there is no upward pressure on employment. For falling prices of goods and falling wage rates DOES NOT imply falling SPENDING on wage rates nor falling SPENDING on goods. The unemployment reducing/eliminating fall in wage rates is predicated on more labor sold for the same wage fund. The unemployment reducing/eliminating fall in prices is predicted on more goods sold for the same demand.
Even if spending and demand fell, they cannot keep falling ad infinitum to zero. At some point, prices for both labor and goods would be so low relative to the quantity of money, that there would be no reason for any further cash holding. Once that point is reached, which in a free market would likely not take as long as Keynesians like to claim, non-frictional unemployment can be eliminated.
Keynes tried to get out of this by claiming that as wage rates and prices are falling, so is the “marginal efficiency of capital”. Why would the MEC be falling according to Keynes? He claimed that the MEC falls because, as investment takes place in response to a fall in wage rates and prices, capital prices will, get this, increase. Keynes took the context of a fall in wage rates and prices, and completely contradicted it by asserting that this cannot eliminate unemployment because capital prices and hence costs will rise! So we’re supposed to believe that falling wage rates and prices cannot cure unemployment because with falling revenues and rising costs, a free market will allegedly be stuck in a depression!
Clearly this is absurd. It is absurd to argue against whether or not a fall in wage rates and prices can cure unemployment by imagining the complete opposite in your response!
Capital prices FALL in a context of wage rates and prices falling.
Because Keynes and his followers never addressed whether or not a fall in wage rates and prices can eliminate unemployment, his followers, including Krugman, are basing their ideological attacks on the free market from an intellectually flawed foundation. No wonder these market haters flock to Keynesianism. It is providing them with the (flawed) theory that justifies their ideology!
Hm, this is one of the most pessimistic ideological proclamations I have ever heard, because if correct, it would mean that at least 2 billion people in this world, the Buddhists (who don’t believe in God), are lost for libertarianism.
Hi Ivan,
I am not a Buddhist expert, how many Buddhist are
Libertarian and is their philosophy constant with l
Libertarianism or opposed?