The Meaning of Liberalism (Part 3):
Is Libertarianism Compatible with Christianity?
In my first
post on the meaning of liberalism, I explored the meaning of
true, classical liberalism (which has become libertarianism in our
modern age). In my second
post, I explained how this true liberalism was hijacked by social
democrats and conservative statists. I concluded that post with the
encouragement that not all hope is lost for classical liberalism, and
that in fact it is still in existence (though, of course, it is not
the dominating form of government as it was in most of the
nineteenth century) in the form of libertarianism, which was first
developed through what is known as the Old Right (for
more information on the Old Right, readers are requested to refer to
Murray N. Rothbard's Betrayal of the American Right, which is
available for free
download at Mises.org), and then
which branched out into our modern libertarian movements, such as the
Ron Paul revolution of 2008 and 2012. Now, in this post (and, may I
add, the final part of my series), I will explore whether classical
liberalism (or libertarianism) is compatible with the historic
Christian faith. I will like to note that this will deal with the
liberal/libertarian creed in general, and it will not deal in depth
with the finer points of libertarian theory (such as intellectual
property, foreign policy, economics, anarchism and government, or
other things), though they will make certain appearances here and
there in the post.
Also, instead of the term
“liberalism,” I will use the term libertarianism, in description
of the ideology that was an extension of the classical liberal ideal.
While I hold classical liberalism and libertarianism to be the same
at the most basic level, I would use libertarianism, in light of our
modern context.
Now, having laid out my two-paragraph
introduction on the piece, I will get to the meat of the piece.
Is libertarianism compatible with
Christianity? Is the creed of the libertarian compatible with the
creed of the Christianity? Is the basic foundation of libertarianism
compatible with the foundation of Christianity? Are the teachings of
Jesus compatible with the teachings of Jefferson or Bastiat or Mises
or Rothbard? Does libertarianism equal the rejection of absolutes,
morals, truths, faith and values? If you answered yes to question
five and no to the first four, then this post is for you. I will be
making the claim that not only is libertarianism compatible with
Christianity, it is a logical extension of Christian political
philosophy. I am not perfect in everything myself, and I will be
flawed in my explanations, and there are writers who have explored
this topic in many ways better than I might do myself.
I will start with addressing common
objections to liberalism in the libertarian sense.
1.
Libertarianism neglects the spiritual side of life, consigning
itself to only the physical realm.This
criticism abides in many circles, particularly among non-libertarian
evangelicals, Catholics, mainline Protestants, conservatives and
modern-day left wingers.
They will usually point out to classical liberals and libertarians who do this
and then they may consign this label to other classical liberals and
libertarians. I will acknowledge that there are classical liberals
and libertarians throughout history and throughout modern times who
have indeed neglected the spiritual side of life; these liberals and
libertarians would include but not limited to: John Stuart Mill,
Jeremy Bentham (who changed
from laissez-faire liberalism to statism), and many of the
Chicago School free-market economists. However, there are many
libertarians who do share a concern for the spiritual side of life,
as I will show later. And libertarianism itself, while it is solely
a political philosophy, does not mandate the neglect of spirituality
or morality to be a libertarian. It doesn't claim to be the
salvation of man's soul, and it has never claimed such things since
its beginnings. In his 1987 article “Libertarians
In A State-Run World,” Murray Rothbard said this of anti-religious
libertarians:
“I am getting
tired of the offhand smearing of religion that has long been endemic
to the libertarian movement. Religion is generally dismissed as
imbecilic at best, inherently evil at worst.” He goes on to state
in that article that “the greatest and most creative minds in the
history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religion, most of
them Christian. It is not necessary to be religious to come to grips
with that fact (Murray Rothbard, “Libertarians In A State-Run World,” Liberty, December 1987, vol. 1.3, pp.23-25).”
He warned that
“libertarians will never win the hearts and minds of Americans or
of the rest of the world if we persist in wrongly identifying
libertarianism with atheism.” These words of wisdom prove that even
the agnostic Rothbard recognized that libertarianism does not in and
of itself exclude religion and spirituality.
2.
Libertarianism is atheistic and utopian; it whitewashes the utter
depravity of man. This criticism
is often repeated by defenders of the Christian faith, as well as
conservative Roman Catholics, left-leaning evangelicals, and others.
They often see that many libertarians are either staunch atheists or
agnostics who don't like religion, particularly Christianity. Thus,
they tend to see libertarians as a bunch of atheists, agnostics, and
anti-religious persons who are no better than an anti-religious ACLU
lawyer or another Madelyn Murray O'Hair. One particular criticism of
libertarians promoted by the conservatives is this, particularly
stated by the conservative Russell Kirk, that
“Libertarians
(like anarchists and Marxists) believe that human nature is good,
though damaged by social institutions. Conservatives,
on the contrary, hold that 'in Adam's fall, we sinned all': human
nature, though compounded by good and evil, is irredeemably flawed;
so the perfection of society, all humans beings being imperfect.
Thus, the libertarian pursues his illusory way to utopia, and the
conservatives knows that for the path to Avernus (Russell Kirk, “Libertarians: The Chirping Sectaries, Modern Age, Fall 1981, pp. 345-46).”
This position is very common among
many conservatives, as well as many Catholics and traditionalist
evangelicals. This is also very unfounded, as there are many
Christians and Catholics who also happen to be libertarians (or
classical liberals). Some modern examples include Ron Paul, Laurence
Vance, Norman Horn of LibertarianChristians.com,
C. Jay Engel of The
Reformed Libertarian, Thomas E. Woods, Lew Rockwell, Joseph
Salerno, economist Robert P. Murphy, William L. Anderson, Art Carden,
Paul Cwik, Leonard Liggio and many more. Then there are the usual
historical examples among the classical-liberal predecessors to
modern libertarians such as John Locke, Anne Hutchison, Roger
Williams, Frederic Bastiat, Richard Cobden, John Bright, John
Lilburne (an early Leveller), as well as the great historian Lord
Acton. In the early to middle twentieth century, there were
libertarians such as the Congregationalist minister Edmund A. Opitz,
Leonard E. Read, the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education
(FEE), Frank S. Meyer, and many more, who happened to be either Christians and/or Catholics. And even
the agnostic Murray Rothbard expressed admiration for cultural
conservatism and at times admiration for Christianity in his own
writings. And his own wife, JoAnn, happened to be a
Presbyterian. And may I add that J. Gresham Machen could have been
one among many Christian libertarians. He
was opposed to imperialism and war, and he opposed Prohibition
and public schooling. He
is a forgotten libertarian, and he opposed big government and was
one of the few Calvinists who stood for laissez-faire.
Now onto the claim that
libertarianism whitewashes man's depravity. The conservative might say to a libertarian who supports the
legalization of sexual immorality, “Well, aren't you whitewashing
man's depravity when you want to legalize adultery, sodomy,
bestiality, or whatever immoral act occurs in the bedroom? Isn't your
position tantamount to approval? If you believe that it is so
immoral, then why fight for the right to practice this?” Well, I
will answer these claims. The first and most basic claim is that
libertarianism whitewashes the depravity of man. Therefore, we need a
conservative state that will instill moral values in their citizenry.
However, the American revolutionary and classical liberal Thomas
Paine rebutted the argument as follows: “If
all human nature be corrupt, it is needless to strengthen the
corruption by establishing a succession of kings, who be they ever so
base, are still to be obeyed…” He went on to add that “NO man
since the fall hath ever been equal to the trust of being given power
over all (“The Forrester's Letters, III” (orig. in Pennsylvania Journal, April 24, 1776), in The Writings of Thomas Paine (ed. M. D. Conway, New York: G. E Putnam’s Sons, 1906), I, 149–150).” Despite this insightful insight by Paine, many non-libertarians
ignore this and instead point to such non-libertarians as
Jean-Jacques Rousseau as an example of libertarian naiveté on human
nature. Murray Rothbard, in his 1979 speech “Myth
and Truth About Libertarianism,”
said that apart from romantic writings from anarcho-communists, “I
know of no libertarian or classical liberal writers who held this
view.” Some might point to John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, but
we must remember that John Stuart Mill, while he was a classical
liberal, was more representative of modern-day, socially democratic
“liberalism” than with true, classical liberalism. And Jeremy
Bentham changed his views from liberalism to statism,
as Murray Rothbard documented in Chapter 2 of An
Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 2:
Classical Economics.
So Bentham cannot, in any true sense, be considered representative of
libertarianism, as he rejected it.
The
very fact that libertarianism offers an anti-statist theory in both
limited-government laissez-faire and anarchist varieties disproves
the notion that liberalism is utopian. Libertarianism rejects statism
because, as Murray Rothbard said,
“the institution of the state establishes a socially legitimatized
and sanctified channel for bad people to do bad things, to commit
regularized theft and to wield dictatorial power.” It “encourages
the bad, or at least the criminal elements of human nature.” As the
great classical liberal historian Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” There are many ways in
which power corrupts. One way is that it influences a human leader to
do bad things because, after all, isn't he the leader and can't he do
whatever he wants with his power? Another way is that it desensitizes
the leader to the sufferings and pains of those lower than him, and
yet another way is that power gives the opportunity to already
corrupt persons to wreak havoc on those who don't do their bidding.
Much of the twentieth century, with the Holocaust, the gulags, the
wars, the internment camps, and the growth of the State, exemplifies
these facts. Rothbard reminds
us that the free society, “by not establishing such a legitimated
channel for theft and tyranny, discourages the criminal tendencies of
human nature and encourages the peaceful and the voluntary. Liberty
and the free market discourage aggression and compulsion, and
encourage the harmony and mutual benefit of voluntary interpersonal
exchanges, economic, social, and cultural.” Now, do not get me
wrong. In a libertarian society, there will still be sin and crime,
but it will be less in a liberal society than a statist society. For
example, more guns equal less crime, as economist John Lott, Jr. has
shown, because with more guns, the law-abiding, ordered citizen can
use them in defense of his life, liberty and person/property. He can
use it to defend himself against a criminal, such as a murderer,
rapist, or violent thief. Or, at last resort, he could use it to
defend himself against a criminal state.
Rothbard states this
relevant thing about human nature and the State: “If all men were
good and none had criminal tendencies, then there would indeed be no
need for a state, as conservatives concede. But if on the other hand
all men were evil, then the case for the state is just as shaky,
since why should anyone assume that those men who form the government
and obtain all the guns and the power to coerce others, should be
magically exempt from the badness of all the other persons outside
the government?” So if the liberal/libertarian creed is so naïve,
then why does it hold to a very anti-statist view? Should it not take
the social-democratic, statist views on man and the State? Murray
Rothbard, in the twenty-second
chapter
to his libertarian magnum opus (next to Man,
Economy and State)
The
Ethics of Liberty
(available
for free
at Mises.org), says this of legislating morality and the state:
“Aside from other sound arguments against enforced morality (e.g.,
that no action not freely chosen can be considered 'moral'), it is
surely grotesque to entrust the function of guardian of the public
morality to the most extensive criminal (and hence the most immoral)
group in society—the State.” This recognition of state immorality
is crucial to liberal theory. In For
A New Liberty,
Rothbard states that there is a reason why state aggression is far
more important and deadly than, say, private crime: “The
reason is the absence of any check
upon State depredation, a check that does exist when we have to worry
about muggers or the Mafia. To guard against private criminals we
have been able to turn to the State and its police; but who can guard
us against the State itself? No one. For another critical distinction
of the State is that it compels the monopolization of the service of
protection; the State arrogates to itself a virtual monopoly of
violence and of ultimate decision-making in society. If we don’t
like the decisions of the State courts, for example, there are no
other agencies of protection to which we may turn.” (Murray
Rothbard, For
A New Liberty,
p. 58, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006) This is not to neglect that
non-governmental crime should be left unpunished; rather, it means
that the state has greater capability for evil than the average
criminal.
And
as libertarian columnist and Christian Norman Horn writes in his
classic two-part essay “New
Testament Theology of the State,”
“the gospels make some strong implications about the nature of the
state that might surprise us. The state appears to have a strong
connection to Satan and his kingdom, and is antitheticalto the
Kingdom of God, which shuns the use of power for personal gain.” He
proves this point by citing Revelation 18:4, which commands believers
to “come out of her [Babylon], my people, so that you will not
share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues."
Then there are many other passages to support the libertarian view on
the state. (John 18:36, Matthew 6:33, Philippians 3:20) Now, the
teachings of Jesus on the State are not in any way direct. However,
through the New Testament, there are clearly negative examples of
state leaders, such as Herod the Great attempting to kill all the
newborn babies in Bethlehem, Herod Agrippa being eaten by worms for
accepting worship from the people, and the Antichrist instituting a
tyrannical one-world government, the new world order that we have
been warned about in the past and present, and most importantly,
Pontius Pilate and the Roman soldiers crucifying Jesus Christ on the
Cross. And let us not forget the classic story in Matthew 4 where
Satan tempts Jesus with earthly state power if He would only bow to
him. Norman Horn says this of the incident: “I think that Satan was
quite sincere in his offer; Jesus did not brush it off as impossible.
Jesus seems to understand that the kingdoms of this world do belong
to Satan, and we should not think otherwise. Logically, this means
that the kingdoms of the world are at enmity with God.” Horn goes
on to provide examples of the state's enmity with God in the intimate
connection between pagan religions and the high political leadership,
as was emphasized in the ancient Caananite, Assyrian, and Babylonian
cultures. And in the post-apostolic era, Constantine mixed
Christianity with the pagan practices and wedded Christianity to
statism, which some say resulted in Roman Catholicism (though there
are those that dispute the notion that Roman Catholicism has its
roots in statist paganism mixed with Christianity). And don't forget
the Old Order, in which the tyrannical governments used Christianity
to justify its wicked practices, especially the infamous Crusades.
In
conclusion, whether or not we adopt a minarchist or anarchist
perspective on the State and liberty, we must conclude that the State
is in enmity toward God and must either be chained with nullification
and secession, or it must be abolished. (As of now, I take the
minarchist radical view, though I do share sympathies with the
anarcho-libertarian viewpoint.)
Now
onto how the depravity of man factors into the legalization of vices
such as drugs, voluntary prostitution, gambling, sexual immorality,
and other things (abortion not included, as I find it to be a
violation of the libertarian non-aggression principle). I hold that
the reason we support the legalization of drugs, prostitution,
gambling, sexual immorality and other things is that while they are
clearly wrong from the Christian perspective, there is nothing in the
New Testament which mandates physical coercion on the part of the
State to mandate laws against such things. That
is to say, it is simply beyond the scope of the role that God has
designed for a civil government in our New Covenant age.
Now,
some will argue for criminalizing immorality from the Old Testament,
but we must remember the
goal and purpose of the civil law in Israel was to preserve the
nation of Israel. Further, regarding the so-called moral law (the ten
commandments), we hold that the responsibility for their enforcement
is today divided up between the Holy Spirit and its tool of
conviction, the Church and its tool of Church discipline, and a
government (free market or otherwise) and its goal of coercion. The
Holy Spirit and the Church do not coerce. The Church and the
government do not convict. The Holy Spirit and the Church do not
practice Church discipline.
Then there will be those who argue from 1 Timothy 1:8-12 that while
the law might not change the hearts of man, it can show him that he
did wrong, so therefore it is right to legislate morality on this
basis alone. However, the law that 1 Timothy was referring to was not
the civil law but the moral and ethical law. Paul was not dealing
with those who opposed legislating morality but with those who abused
the law to suit their own ends and to those who desired to teach Old
Testament law but were lacking in Scriptural truth. It is in my
honest opinion that the conservative and left-progressive can be seen
as that type of person in our modern context. They both want to have
law, but they misapply it to mean civil law rather than merely
ethical and moral law that remains outside the realm of the state and
of government.
Now, on to the libertarian view of this and how it
intersects with Christianity. Murray Rothbard, in his
introduction to anarchist philosopher and lawyer Lysander Spooner's
tract Vices
Are Not Crimes,
says this of vices and crimes: “Opponents
of the idea of an objective morality commonly charge that moral
theory functions as a tyranny over the individual. This, of course,
happens with many theories of morality, but it cannot happen when the
moral theory makes a sharp and clear distinction between the immoral'
and the 'illegal,' or, in Spooner's words, between 'vices' and
'crimes.' The immoral or the 'vicious' may consist of a myriad of
human actions, from matters of vital importance down to being nasty
to one's neighbor or to willful failure to take one's vitamins. But
none of them should be confused with an action that should be
'illegal,' that is, an action to be prohibited by the violence of
law. The latter, in Spooner's libertarian view, should be confined
strictly to the initiation of violence against the rights of person
and property.” And Lysander Spooner's own
words
support the libertarian viewpoint on vices, crimes and the state:
“Vices
are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes
are
those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.
Vices
are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own
happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no
interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very
essence of crime — that is, the design to injure the person or
property of another — is wanting.” And unless a distinction can
be made between vices and crimes, “there can be on earth no such
thing as individual right, liberty, or property — no such things as
the right of one man to the control of his own person and property,
and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the
control of his own person and property.” And please don't bring up
those
who try to claim that “happiness” is the freedom to do what we
ought (read: what the state commands).
That mindset was more prevalent in the founders of the Soviet Union,
not in the foundation of this country. Tom DiLorenzo points
out
that this mindset “is the mindset of the neoconservatives whose
founding members were, after all, Trotskyite communists. This
includes the self-described 'godfather' of neoconservatism, the late
Irving Kristol, who reveled in talking about his youthful Trotskyite
roots.” And that would include all social democrats, left-liberals,
paleo-conservatives, “crunchy
conservatives,”
socialists, communists, Keynesians, neo-Keynesians, and many more
non-libertarians who believe that laws against non-criminal vices in
any shape or form (economic or personal) should be legislated. But
then the conservative will bring this question into the picture: “If
we believe that certain acts are sinful and unholy, then why do we
seek the legalization of these vices?” This is the most pressing
criticism of the distinction between vice and crime; but it can be
answered. We should not seek the fighting of vices such as drugs,
prostitution and other things from the State, but rather from the
Church. We should not make such vices criminal, as they are not;
there are mere sins against one's own body (or another body if any
consensual sinner was involved).
3.
Libertarians
are inherently atheistic and unspiritual.
This is a regurgitation of the first myth I listed. The
conservatives and Christians see that there are more atheistic
libertarians than there are religious and/or Christian libertarians,
and thus they conclude that libertarians are atheists who hate
religion. They will use virulently anti-religious and anti-Christian
libertarians such as George H. Smith and Ayn Rand as examples of
libertarianism and classical liberalism in general, thus ignoring
the rich liberal/libertarian heritage of religious people. As I
noted before, there were religious classical liberals and
libertarians throughout history, such as John Locke, John Lilburne
(who
could be rightly considered the first libertarian)
and many of the Levellers (who are considered by many to be the
first ever classical-liberal/libertarian movement).
And don't forget the Catholic economist Frederic Bastiat, the
liberal historian Lord Acton, and many more. As the Christian
(Catholic?) classical liberal and economist Jorg Guido Hulsman says
in the prologue to Ralph Raico's dissertation The
Place of Religion in the Liberal Philosophy of Constant, Tocqueville
and Acton,
“there was another tradition within
classical liberal thought, one that recognised the interdependence
between
religion and liberty. This tradition includes most notably the three
great thinkers that Professor Raico has portrayed in his 1970
doctoral dissertation, which explains how the political thought of
Benjamin Constant, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Lord Acton flowed from
their religious convictions.” (p. iv). This tradition stood in
stark contrast to the strain in classical liberalism which held that
religion and liberty are antagonistic, the former being far worse
than the State. This included even great liberals such as Voltaire,
who was a brilliant French Enlightenment thinker and classical
liberal who avoided the illiberalism of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Hulsman states that the position of religion and liberalism being
complimentary is viewed as insolent by many libertarians and
Christians. However, as he states later on when he describes his
recognition of the truth of libertarianism, “that the light of
these truths was but a reflection of the encompassing and eternal
light that radiates from God through His Son and the Holy Spirit.”
(p. iii) This transformational journey of Hulsman is living proof
that Christians can be libertarians, and libertarians can be
Christians, and that the two views are not only compatible but
complimentary.
One
criticism of libertarians from this point of view comes from Russell
Kirk, in his article “Libertarians: The Chirping Sectaries,” in
which he claims that libertarians, “like Satan, can bear no
authority temporal or spiritual.” (p. 347) While many wouldn't go
so far as to compare libertarians with Satan (as Russell Kirk was so
stupid as to call Satan “the original libertarian,” a variation
of Samuel Johnson's terming of the devil as the “original Whig”),
the basic assumption that libertarians are unspiritual is deeply
resonant to these types of people who view libertarianism as wicked.
Jacob Hornberger, a staunch libertarian and Roman Catholic, in his
open letter to Russell Kirk, dealt with this view by noting that
“it
is highly unfair to suggest that libertarians are libertines simply
because they favor, as a principle, legal protection of freedom of
choice.” While this is more in dealing with the
libertarians-as-libertines controversy, it is just as applicable to
this criticism from conservatives of libertarians as atheists. As
Murray Rothbard noted,
most libertarians “believe
that liberty is a natural right embedded in a natural
law
of what is proper for mankind, in accordance with man’s nature.
Where
this set of natural laws comes from, whether it
is
purely natural or originated by a creator, is an important
ontological
question but is irrelevant to social or political
philosophy.”
Thus, from this basis, libertarians can either hold to a humanistic,
purely rationalistic perspective (which I reject) or from a natural
law, rationalistic and humanstic perspective balanced and outweighed
by Christian orthodoxy (which I hold). And then there are Christians
libertarians who base their views solely on presuppositionalist
apologetics as taught by Cornelius Van Til, Gordon Clark, Greg
Bahnsen and John Robbins.
And
may I note that it is not anti-Christian or atheist to critique the
mixture of church and statism. As Rothbard said, "the
union of church and state has been in many instances a mutually
reinforcing
coalition for tyranny. The state used the church to
sanctify
and preach obedience to its supposedly divinely sanctioned
rule;
the church used the state to gain income and privilege.”
He gives examples such as the Anabaptists at Munster, the social
gospel movement, and the socialist Robert Heilbroner, who was hailed
once by Dale Vree, religious writer for conservative periodical National
Review.
And
Rothbard continues: “All
great
works
of art, great emanations of the human spirit, have had to
employ
material objects: whether they be canvasses, brushes and
paint,
paper and musical instruments, or building blocks and raw
materials
for churches. There is no real rift between the 'spiritual' and the
'material' and hence any despotism over and crippling
of
the material will cripple the spiritual as well.”
And this is compatible with Christian doctrine, which teaches that
while there is ultimately a spiritual world we should strive toward,
we ought also to use material goods to strive toward that. And
so-called “materialist” things are sometimes actually more
compatible with Christianity than some so-called “spiritual”
things, as they are sometimes neutral in their nature or even
positive and good. This applies to libertarianism as well; while it
doesn't focus on the entire theory of life, like Christianity does,
it is still a worthy component of the political life.
4.
Libertarians
are just a bunch of atomists who don't care about community and about
helping the poor.
This is one of the most pressing criticisms of liberalism from
Christians and conservatives (and even left-progressives). It
basically assumes that since we liberals and libertarians are
individualists who reject collectivism, we reject basic community.
This criticism is unwarranted, and I will show why. Murray Rothbard
said
of this, “Libertarians
are methodological and political individualists, to be sure. They
believe that only individuals think, value, act, and choose. They
believe that each individual has the right to own his own body, free
of coercive interference. But no individualist denies that people are
influencing each other all the time in their goals, values, pursuits
and occupations.”
Even communities are ultimately made up of individuals. No classical
liberal or libertarian denies this; the only exception, Rothbard
points out, was the idiotic fanatic Max Stirner, who has had very
little influence on libertarians since. And his explicit “Might
Makes Right” philosophy and repudiation of morality and natural
rights “scarcely
qualifies him as a libertarian in any sense.”
In fact, this very philosophy was used by many dictators in the 20th
century to defend their exploits. It was the very same philosophy
that Nietzsche used to defend the concept of the superman,
which then translated to Hitlerism. Now back to communities. Rothbard
points out that libertarians
“are in no way opposed to the voluntary cooperation and
collaboration between individuals: only to the compulsory
pseudo-'cooperation' imposed by the state.”
In For
A New Liberty,
Rothbard also shows that this accusation is an authoritarian straw
man, as he points out that “what
he abhors is the use of violence to cripple such
voluntary cooperation and force someone to choose and act in ways
different from what his own mind dictates.”
(Murray Rothard, For
A New Liberty,
Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006)
Now,
having refuted many of the arguments against libertarianism, I will
go on to make some positive arguments for it from a Christian
perspective.
1.
Libertarianism
is compatible with the claims of the Christian religion.
There I said it. Libertarianism is compatible with orthodox
Christianity. Laurence Vance, in his speech “Is
Libertarianism Compatible with Religion?.” says this: “The
Bible commands the Christian to devise not evil against his neighbor
(Proverbs 3:29), love his neighbor as himself (Romans 13:9), show
meekness unto all men (Titus 3:2), do good unto all men (Galatians
6:10), provide things honest in the sight of all men (Romans 12:21),
and live peaceably with all men (Romans 12:18). If libertarianism is
not compatible with these things then it is not compatible with
anything.” Thus, the only caveats for Christians regarding liberty
is “to not let their liberty become a stumbling block to weaker
brothers and to not use their liberty for an occasion to the flesh;
that is, don't be a libertine.” Here the questions he asks: “Can
a Christian assault someone in the name of the Lord Jesus? Can a
Christian steal from someone heartily, as to the Lord? Can a
Christian kill someone to the glory of God? I think the answer to
these questions is obvious. And I also think it is apparent that
libertarianism is compatible with the Christian religion.” Thus,
not only “is libertarianism compatible with the most strict, most
biblically literal form of Christianity, it is demanded by it.”
Norman Horn, in his popular Washington Post article “Can
a Christian be a Libertarian?,”
says that the non-aggression principle (the core of libertarianism)
“is in many respects a kind of political corollary to the Golden
Rule. Thus, Christian libertarians think that government power
should be limited, sound money and truly free markets should return,
aggressive war must cease and civil liberties must be preserved.”
It takes man's sinful nature realistically when it rejects the idea
of special privileges. “God does not show favoritism nor does he
give special privileges of position. Everyone is accountable to the
moral law in the same way. When governments and politicians extend
their power so that they can abridge people’s natural rights with
impunity, they have crossed the line into immorality.”
And as Ron
Paul stated in his classic The
Revolution: A Manifesto,
“The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous… God’s grace
alone can accomplish such a thing (Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, p. 126, Grand Central Publishing, 2008).”
Elsewhere, Laurence Vance
has written a very helpful essay entitled “An
Open Letter to My Fellow Christians,”
which deals with vices, crimes and the State from a libertarian
perspective. Vance says that “The Christian's ultimate rule of
faith is the New Testament. There is no support in the New Testament
for the idea that Christians should seek legislation that would
criminalize victimless acts - whether they are sins or not. Specific
sins are mentioned that are in fact crimes, such as murder (Romans
1:29), stealing (Ephesians 4:28), rioting (Romans 13:13), and
extortion (1 Corinthians 6:10) (Laurence Vance, “An Open Letter to My Fellow Christians,” p. 34, Liberty Magazine, May 2007).” He also goes on to note that the Apostle Paul never
advocated criminalizing non-criminal vices; in fact, he himself “was
himself a victim of a victimless crime law. He was beaten and
imprisoned for teaching 'customs, which are not lawful for us to
receive, neither to observe, being Romans' (Acts 16:21). He was
almost killed for teaching 'all men every where against the people,
the law, and this place' (Acts 21:28) (ibid.) .” Later on, Vance
shows that instead of following Christ's command to make disciples
of all nations, fulfilling the Great Commission, Christians “they
turn to the state to criminalize what they consider immoral. Instead
of changing people's minds about what is and what is not acceptable
in society, they seek to use the state to change people's behavior.
Instead of greeting with a healthy dose of skepticism the state's
latest pronouncement about what substance needs to be banned,
regulated, or taxed, they wholeheartedly embrace it. Instead of
being an example to the world, they want to use the state to make
the world conform to their example. Instead of educating themselves
and other Christians about what is appropriate behavior, they rely
on the state to make that determination. Instead of looking
internally for funding, they look to the state to fund their
faith-based initiatives. Instead of minding their own business, they
mind everyone else's (ibid.).” As William L. Anderson summed up
nicely in one
of his essays,
“Most conservative Christians abhor libertarianism because they
see it as promoting a permissive lifestyle from abortion to taking
drugs. Yet, what they fail to understand is that the restrictive,
prohibition-oriented state that they are trying to create (and also
preserve) is much more likely to take away all liberties than a
state that gives people permission to live as they wish (within the
boundaries of not doing harm to others and engaging in peaceful
exchange).”
Also,
the idea of victimless crime legislation is based on one basic thing:
that the state cares more for morality than the human being. And many
Christians, while they rightly focus on the kingdom of God,
mistakenly focus on the external fixing of the world; in my words,
they would prefer a totalitarian, anti-immorality legalism to a
libertine world. As H. L. Mencken once said, “The urge to save
humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.”
This, in my opinion, is descriptive of conservative evangelicals,
leftist evangelicals and other non-libertarian Christians. As Vance
says in his open letter, many Christians “have too lofty a
view of the state. They are too quick to rely on the state, trust the
state, and believe the state. Sure, they may criticize the state
because it permits abortion, but they generally fail to discern the
state's true nature (p. 40),” which was accurately described by economist
Richard Ebeling in these words: “There has been no greater threat
to life, liberty, and property throughout the ages than government.
Even the most violent and brutal private individuals have been able
to inflict only a mere fraction of the harm and destruction that have
been caused by the use of power by
political authorities” (The Freeman, Jan.-Feb. 2005).
2.
Libertarianism
believes in freedom and rejects coercion; in the same way, Scripture
rejects coercion unto salvation.
Another claim for libertarianism from the Christian viewpoint is its
belief in human freedom and rejection of coercion, which is in many
ways similar to the Christian view. For example, Christ was not
coerced into dying for the sins of the world; in fact, as Christ
Himself said, “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of
myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again. This commandment have I received of my Father (John 10:18,
KJV).” Another instance in which Scripture rejects coercion is the
community in Acts 2:42-45, which is wrongly used to support the
communist system. However, when one looks at the Scripture passage,
it is clear that there is no one putting a sword to someone's neck
(or a gun to someone's head, in our modern terminology) and there is
no coercion; rather, it is believers giving everything in one accord
(later on in the Book of Acts, it is recorded that the whole
communal system was itself a mistake too). Doug Newman, in his
classic essay “Was
Jesus a libertarian?,”
cites C. S. Lewis's classic Mere
Christianity,
which states that a Christian society “is not going to arrive
until most of us really want it: and most of us are not going to
want it until we become fully Christian." Doug Newman then goes
on to add his words, stating that the Christian society “will
not happen until enough individuals
choose to
become Christians. Even then, while our social ills may abate, they
will not disappear.”
Tom Mullen, in a brilliant article entitled “Jesus
Christ, Libertarian,”
explains that Jesus' not stoning the woman caught in adultery and
just saying “Go and sin no more” is another example of the
fact that coercion is not to be used to change the immorality of the
sinner. Mullen states this poignant section
that should apply to all of us: “It is important to recognize that
Jesus does not condone the sin that the anonymous woman has
committed. When he has shamed away the mob who would have stoned
her, Jesus commands her to sin no more. Neither does he insinuate
that her behavior might not have consequences for her soul. With
flawless libertarian reasoning, Jesus teaches us the true meaning of
freedom: that God grants us the liberty to do as we wish, even to
reject him and his laws, but that we also bear the full consequences
of our actions. If we harm another person, then we are subject to
the laws of men. However, it is for each individual to determine the
will of God according to his conscience and to choose whether to act
accordingly or not. There never has been nor can there ever be any
body of corruptible men who can save an individual’s soul.” And
not only that, Mullen notes that Jesus' ministry consisted in large
of rebuking the socially conservative Pharisees, who added so many
laws and who didn't lift a finger to help those carrying the burden
(Matthew 23:4). I could go on and on about how Scripture,
particularly the New Testament, rejects coercion, but this will
suffice.
3.
Libertarianism,
like Scripture, rejects the messianic state.
In Scripture, we see examples of states being depicted as wicked in
the sight of God. A common thread runs through these depictions: the
rejection of state messianism. C. Jay Engel, in his essay “The
Messianic Propensity of the State,”
notes this crucial insight: “The lust for Empire, for world
domination, is a longing with a well-rooted history. From the
Egyptians to Alexander the Great to the modern American global rule,
there will always be those who, via the strong arm of the State, will
seek to monopolize the wealth of the earth. With resources naturally
divided throughout the world, the moral means of accumulating such
wealth is by trade, by productivity and economic calculation based on
the private control and determination of prices and goods. The
State is the means by which morality is ignored and coercion is
applied.” He later goes on to show that even the Bill of Rights and
the Constitution, which were born out of a knowledge of the messianic
propensity of the state, were failures, as modern-day America has
shown. “Regardless,” says Engel, “it was under this governing
structure that it was declared illegal for the Federal Government to
expand beyond a very specific (albeit not specific enough) set of
powers. The goal was to prevent the State from becoming society’s
leviathan.” The state must always depict itself as always noble,
even when its actions are clearly unjust. It must provide its own
services in its quest for domination: public school, an
interventionist war policy, welfare statism, subsidizing businesses
in an attempt to destroy competition, draconian laws in the name of
“competitive processes” and a host of other goods and services in
an attempt to prove itself as noble. Wherever problems exist, the
State says “Come unto me, all you weary and heavy-laden and I will
give you rest.” It seeks to replace the Church and ultimately God
in being the Messiah. As Lord Acton powerfully stated, “Power
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And the state,
most importantly, claims to be the ultimate lawgiver from which order
stems. “No civilization desires lawlessness,” says Engel, “and
therefore the State utilizes this desire to become the law itself.
And when the law-giver is immoral and despicable, the law itself will
reflect that.” People worry that without statism, society will
collapse. However, this fear is unfounded because, as Engel shows us,
when “the people see the State in the same way as the State sees
itself, society falls. We salute the flag regardless of the actions
of the state. We pledge allegiance to an immoral and lethal
institution. We bow to it, we sing songs to it, we sacrifice our
lives for it. We fight wars on its behalf! Behold the almighty
State!” Murray Rothbard, in his classic essay “The
Anatomy of the State,”
shows that “the State is that organization in society which
attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a
given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in
society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or
payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other
individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of
goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these
goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the
use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the
jailhouse and the bayonet.the State is that organization in society
which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and
violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only
organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary
contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While
other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production
of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these
goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the
use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the
jailhouse and the bayonet (Murray N. Rothbard, “The Anatomy of the
State,” p. 2, Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought,
Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer 1965).”
Thus, not even strong limits on power can suffice, for as John C.
Calhoun showed in his Disquisition
on Government,
“A
written constitution certainly has many and considerable advantages,
but it is a great mistake to suppose that the mere insertion of
provisions to restrict and limit the power of the government, without
investing those for whose protection they are inserted with the means
of enforcing their observance will
be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing
its powers (John C. Calhoun, A
Disquisition on Government,
Liberal Arts Press, 1953, pp. 25-27).” Calhoun goes on to state
that eventually the constitution will be annulled, despite whatever
attempts are made to make it stricter. However, what should be the
Christian's view of the state, in light of the view put forth by
libertarians? I hold that Christians should view the state as either
a necessary evil which is to be heavily limited (my own view, as well
as the classical libertarian view) or to be abolished completely (the
view of such Christian libertarians as Norman Horn, Doug Douma, Jim
Fedako and Robert P. Murphy). For more help on this issue, let us
again refer to Norman Horn's essay “The
New Testament Theology of the State.”
Horn reminds us that the text of Romans 13 (which is often held to
be the text for the Christian's view on government despite
evidence to the contrary)
can be understood by looking at the actual context rather than on the
popular “face-value” reading that most Christians take. Romans
13:1 says that states are instituted, ultimately, by God. “Paul's
primary message for Christians, however, is not that states are
specially instituted in the same way as the family and church, but
rather that the state is not operating outside of the plans of God.
In this sense, the state is divinely instituted in the same way that
Satan is divinely instituted. God is not surprised when states act
the way they do. As noted specifically in the Gospels, the state is
understood throughout Scripture as being intimately tied to Satan and
his kingdom, and patently opposed to the Kingdom of God. The state's
status within God's ultimate plan does not legitimize the evil the
state commits.”
Thus, our obedience to the state is not so much because it is
wonderful and moral, but rather out of a wise pragmatism. We obey the
state because we don't want to incur a bad example, not because the
state's policies are moral. We pay our taxes not because taxes are
right, but because we enter into needless risk when we evade taxes.
We follow speeding laws not because we believe in speeding laws but
because of a fear for tickets and prison. Ultimately, our obedience
to the state has more to do with practicality and pragmatism than it
does a moral defense of the state itself.
As
I noted before, there are several references that could be used to
support the libertarian view of the State from a Christian
perspective, but I would definitely like to focus on how Revelation
depicts the State. For example, in that book, we see Satan trying to
eradicate God's children, both Jews and Gentiles, from the face of
the earth. In Revelation 13, we see him using the Antichrist (the
Beast) as a tool to control and subjugate the whole earth. As some
term it, he will be multiple dictators in one. And he uses the New
World Order (NWO) to subjugate the whole earth, where no one can
interact with each other until they have the Mark of the Beast (which
in human numerals is 666). This mark is similar to the modern-day
business license (though on a much grander scale) and the state
license in general, where basically something is illegal until one
obtains this license.
And
we see the Kingdom of God replacing it and sweeping this Babylon
away, this Babylon which slays the children of God and oppresses the
Jews, this Babylon that seeks war and lives off the blood of
everyone.
Ultimately,
libertarianism rejects the messianic state in a way that no other
philosophy does; it goes to the core of the whole problem and not
merely branches of it.
4.
Libertarianism
is compatible with the spiritual realm.
Contrary to the common attacks by anti-libertarians, libertarianism
does not neglect the spiritual realm, but is compatible with it.
Libertarianism does not promise to save the souls of man, as
Christianity does; it has never promised it and it never will;
rather, it seeks for justice and the abolition of state injustice and
the promotion of individual liberty, free markets, peaceful foreign
policy, and limited government (or no government for the anarchists
out there). As I said before, libertarianism is compatible with
Christianity, so I feel no need to delve very deeply into this issue.
Now, my final conclusion is that
libertarianism is compatible with the claims of Christianity, and
that it is in many ways an extension of Christian political
philosophy. I have not developed fully the
Christian libertarian view on specific issues (those are for later
essays), but here I have laid the general foundation for the
libertarian theory from a Christian perspective.
