In Defense of Lew Rockwell (Part 1)

Recently, Lew Rockwell announced that he was writing a new book — Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto. However, Eglė Markevičiūtė, member of the International Executive Board for Students for Liberty (SFL), decided to attack Lew Rockwell. Robert Wenzel responded to her quite well. However, he also suggested that one can increase one's blog traffic by speaking in favor of Lew Rockwell and libertarian purity. I will embark upon this attempt to defend Lew Rockwell and his libertarian work against certain criticisms that he has received from some libertarians, not just to increase the blog traffic but also because I want to clear up some misinformation that has been spread about this man.

My personal views on Rockwell are this: while he is not a flawless man and while he is human, I think Rockwell is a boon to the liberty movement, a tireless and fearless defender of liberty, not afraid to ruffle a few feathers (even among libertarians), and he is always willing and able to stand fast to the liberty message.

However, some libertarians don't share as fond a view of Rockwell that I do (his work has been instrumental in my becoming a libertarian). Many see him as a bitter egomaniac and a right-wing racist who is bad for the liberty movement, often because of Rockwell's controversial views on certain things (federalism, Lincoln, etc.). I intend to respond to a few criticisms of Rockwell that I have encountered among some libertarians and clear up certain misconceptions that I have found.

1. Lew Rockwell is a racist who was responsible for the Ron Paul newsletters and isn't man enough to admit it. This is one of the most interesting criticisms of Lew Rockwell that I have encountered, as it recollects to the controversial Ron Paul newsletters that the mainstream media dug up in light of the Ron Paul revolution of 2008 and 2012. Some libertarians have suggested that Lew Rockwell, a friend of Ron Paul and the late Murray Rothbard, was responsible for writing the newsletters and that he should come clean about it. Particularly notable is the libertarian magazine Reason's coverage of the issue, which pinned the whole thing on Lew Rockwell and the "paleo-libertarian" strategy that Rockwell and Rothbard advocated in the 1990s.

However, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com addresses this issue very ably in his column for Taki's Magazine on the issue. He points out that the so-called "racist" statements are actually far from racism and that those statements are actually not anti-libertarian or a stumbling block to libertarianism. He said this of Ron Paul that can be safely applied to Lew Rockwell:

It’s no mystery, really: Ron Paul is, in many ways, the exact opposite of the Beltway fake-“libertarians.” He’s a populist: they suck up to power, he challenges the powers-that-be; they go along to get along – he has never gone along with the conventional wisdom as defined by the arbiters of political correctness, Left and Right. And most of all, he’s an avowed enemy of the neoconservatives, whom he constantly names as the main danger to peace and liberty – while the Beltway’s tame “libertarians” are in bed with them, often literally as well as figuratively.

2. Lew Rockwell's political incorrectness, radicalism and right-wing extremism are dangerous for libertarianism. Another corollary criticism of Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute is that regarding Lew Rockwell's politically incorrect ideas, radical interpretation of libertarianism and culturally conservative views, as well as Rockwell's own rejection of leftist values and political correctness. Left-libertarians and culturally liberal libertarians often protest that Lew Rockwell's "backwards" values will hinder the liberty movement from growing and will ultimately hinder libertarianism.

One author argues:

Mentioned in Weigel and Sanchez’s piece was another libertarian giant, Murray Rothbard, who was mostly an advocate of what is known as “anarcho-capitalism.” This is what libertarians are typically branded with by those on the right and left, that we want to create a world where there is no government, where everything is handled by private companies (including courts, fire departments, police, highways, you name it, it’s private.) While I feel that anarcho-capitalism does get a bum rap, most libertarians do not espouse this position. Most of us instead believe a minimal government is ideal, even some of us (myself included) may be “philosophical anarchists,” that it would be nice to have anarchy, that it would be a great ideal, but it’s just that—an ideal, something that will not work in the real world.

Ah, just more "anarcho-capitalism is great in theory but bad in practice." However, even if most libertarians are not anarchists, I believe that the non-anarchist is being somewhat naive in believing that there is such a thing as limited government, for the State doesn't limit itself but in fact will use what is intended as a limit to expand its own power. For example, certain phrases in the Constitution that could be interpreted as limited government platitudes by one group can then be interpreted as statist platitudes in one instance. Murray Rothbard himself said in "Anatomy of the State":

Certainly the most ambitious attempt to impose limits on the State has been the Bill of Rights and other restrictive parts of the American Constitution, in which written limits on government became the fundamental law to be interpreted by a judiciary supposedly independent of the other branches of government. All Americans are familiar with the process by which the construction of limits in the Constitution has been inexorably broadened over the last century. But few have been as keen as Professor Charles Black to see that the State has, in the process, largely transformed judicial review itself from a limiting device to yet another instrument for furnishing ideological legitimacy to the government's actions. For if a judicial decree of "unconstitutional" is a mighty check to government power, an implicit or explicit verdict of "constitutional" is a mighty weapon for fostering public acceptance of ever-greater government power.

So basically, the "great in theory but bad in practice" can truly be applied to the belief in "limited government" rather than anarcho-capitalism.

And as to Rockwell's political incorrectness and right-wing leanings, I would like to give extended comment. In many of Rockwell's writings, I haven't noticed any attempt to claim that his "right-wing values" are libertarianism, whereas in many of his left-wing detractors' writings, I have noticed attempts to merge libertarianism and culturally leftist values into one holistic philosophy. Yes, Lew Rockwell probably believes his views fit more nicely with libertarianism, but that does not mean he wants to incorporate it into a "holistic" libertarianism; in fact, he is a "thin" libertarian who believes that libertarianism is only a political philosophy dealing with the non-aggression principle/axiom and the use of force in society. In his recent article "What Libertarianism Is, And Isn't," Rockwell rightly says:

Libertarianism is concerned with the use of violence in society. That is all. It is not anything else. It is not feminism. It is not egalitarianism (except in a functional sense: everyone equally lacks the authority to aggress against anyone else). It has nothing to say about aesthetics. It has nothing to say about religion or race or nationality or sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with left-wing campaigns against “white privilege,” unless that privilege is state-supplied. 

Let me repeat: the only “privilege” that matters to a libertarian qua libertarian is the kind that comes from the barrel of the state’s gun. Disagree with this statement if you like, but in that case you will have to substitute some word other than libertarian to describe your philosophy.

Libertarians are of course free to concern themselves with issues like feminism and egalitarianism. But their interest in those issues has nothing to do with, and is not required by or a necessary feature of, their libertarianism. Accordingly, they may not impose these preferences on other libertarians, or portray themselves as fuller, more consistent, or more complete libertarians. We have seen enough of our words twisted and appropriated by others. We do not mean to let them have libertarian.

So this should put to rest some concerns that Rockwell is trying to make libertarianism right-wing. And if by right-wing it is meant consistency and purity in libertarianism, then I am all for it, as it is not an attempt to insert cultural values into libertarianism.

Logan Albright also notes:

The trouble is that by attempting to redefine a narrow political philosophy to encompass all things that we like and think are nice – like non-discrimination, like treating people as ends rather than means – we dilute its power and simplicity. We destroy what makes it great. Once we proceed down the road of declaring everything we think is good to be “libertarian,” we will quickly find that libertarianism suddenly has no meaning at all.

So I have noticed that many of Rockwell's detractors have often criticized him for not being "thick" enough, for being too strict and all that.

However, this strictness is what keeps libertarianism from being convoluted, and I am all for that.

Next up: Part 2, where I deal with more criticisms of Lew Rockwell and his strategies for liberty.

The Ukraine Crisis - The Libertarian Perspective

The Ukraine crisis is very controversial and many news reports have been written on this. While there is much good information on this, there is also much misinformation, much of it promoted by the mainstream media.

So the libertarian, particularly the libertarian Christian, must have an answer with regards to how to solve the Ukraine crisis. The basis must be the principle of noninterventionism. Nations should not interfere with one another's affairs, not even with the motive of helping a destitute country. Peaceful solutions to problems can be found without the use of intervention, and the United States government should not meddle in the affairs of Ukraine.

Having said that, we need to understand certain things about the situation that will clarify some things.

US Involvement in Ukranian-Russian Affairs

To fully understand the crisis, one must look to see how the United States government has dealt with Ukraine and Russia before the crisis broke out.

Sheldon Richman argues that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Republicans and Democrats supported an aggressively anti-Russian outlook. Also, unlike promised, NATO did not disband but rather expanded its growth, and included Ukraine in the fold, along with the other former Soviet republics.

Also, $5 billion was invested in the Orange Revolution, as admitted by the neoconservative Victoria "F*** the EU" Nuland, which for a time brought pro-US politicians into the halls of power, and the US government is still running the Ukraine opposition, as Daniel McAdams reveals.

In 2004, Ian Traynor reported that "the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes."

This should explain some very important things: the US government does have its own interests in the situation, and they are not entirely noble.

The Current Situation

Now the current situation involves power struggles, riots, government corruption, and many problems. The nation is divided between the pro-European faction that wants to unite with Ukraine and those who do not.

Justin Raimondo aptly sums up the situation in this article:

First, a primer for those who have missed the rapidly escalating events of the past few days: mobs of protesters have taken over Kiev and the government of Viktor Yanukovich has been effectively overthrown. Impeached by the Parliament, andopposed now even by members of his Party of Regions, Yanukovich has fled the presidential palace for parts unknown (probably to his home town of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, near the Russian border). The police and all signs of organized authority have simply disappeared from the streets of the city: armed bands dressed inmedieval armor, carrying bats, crowbars, and sometimes guns roam the streets, dispensing victor’s "justice" to anyone perceived as a Yanukovich supporter.

It’s a coup d’etat, pure and simple, the violent overthrow of a duly elected official, and it is being hailed not only by that champion of "democracy," the United States government, but also by our clearly biased media, which is using this as a bludgeon to beat the hated Vladimir Putin – the latest in a series of overseas villains, second only to Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

So the overthrow of Yanukovich wasn't so great after all, despite what some may have you think. The media's support for this is more or less an attempt to stick its finger in the eye of Russian leader Vladimir Putin (who I don't exactly view kindly). While it is true that there was suffering among the Ukranians due to the outright thieves in government, the whole Ukranian protests are more or less funded by the American government in an attempt to install the US-supported rulers instead. And to add insult to injury, many of the Ukraine protestors are less-than-savory folks, many of which include right-wing neo-Nazis, ultra-nationalists, and all the other bad things. Also, to note, the chief rabbi in Ukraine warned Jews to flee Ukraine.

And to the claims that Russian troops are moving into Ukraine, they are moving into Crimea, which should be left for the Crimeans. Justin Raimondo says, "The very idea of a Russian invasion of Ukraine is so counterproductive to Russia’s longterm interests that it is difficult to see Putin taking this course – and yet nothing can be ruled out at this point."

So what should the position be? Crimea has the right to self-determination and should be allowed to leave Ukraine, the United States government should leave Ukraine, and let a peaceful solution be brought about with intervention from the US government.

Libertarianism, Christianity, and the Problem of Human Nature

Libertarianism, Christianity, and the Problem of Human Nature

by

Anand Venigalla

The question of human nature has always left libertarians and freedom lovers with a dilemma. Conservatives, particularly Christians, routinely accuse libertarians of neglecting the sinfulness of human nature when they advocate such measures as non-interventionism in foreign policy, legalization of vices such as prostitution, drug use, alcohol use, pornography, sexual immorality, and other things that we Christians ought to abhor, as well as rejecting the role of government in criminalizing these sins. So, since we libertarians reject coercing morality and foreign interventionism, we are attacked as naive and careless. Of course, there are leftist arguments against libertarians with regards to human nature, but I will primarily deal with conservative arguments against libertarianism, for  these arguments are popular among my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I will defend libertarianism against these false and exaggerated charges.

Arguments Against Libertarianism

1. Libertarianism is contrary to the Bible since it rejects the legitimacy of the state's coercing of morality on its subject. The argument holds that since Romans 13 is supposed to tell us that the role of governments is to promote good and condemn evil, then that means "legislating morality." Such laws would include legislation placing restrictions on narcotic drugs, excessive alcohol consumption, premarital and extramarital sex, adultery, homosexual relations, polygamy, prostitution, peep shows, and other things that are deemed immoral by the conservative. Since libertarianism rejects the role of government in restricting such activity, the conservative Christian will argue that libertarianism is contrary to God's design for government. They may concede that the laws would be unenforcable, or that such laws won't make a man moral or regenerate. But they do argue that the law is there as a guide and a terror to evil, so that even if such laws don't increase the amount of born-again Christians, it will decrease the amount of immorality. I will refute this argument later on, but this is a pretty good summary of what is being held.

2. Libertarian foreign policy rejects reality because it is utopian in its view of nations, States, and terrorists; it also rejects America's superiority because it rejects America's foreign interventionism. Conservative Christians often attack libertarians on their foreign policy views because it rejects interventionism, American exceptionalism, pre-emptive warfare as a deterrent to rogue nations, and the use of nuclear weapons as a defense tool. The libertarian rejects the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction because he sees them as totally incapable of pure defense and limitation of the toll of lives it takes. The conservative Christian will usually protest that it is not so much the weapons that are evil but rather who has them and how they will be used. Thus, he will be more comfortable with certain governments (such as the American, British, and Israeli governments) using nuclear weapons and uncomfortable with other governments (like North Korea, China, and Iran) possessing them. Also, libertarians often reject interventionism because they see it as a provocation for terrorists to attack a country due to discontent from a nation's intervention. For example, the majority of libertarians (including myself) hold that the attacks on 9/11 were in part (or wholly) a result of America's interventions in the Middle East (an example of this would be the CIA's participation in the 1953 Iranian coup and the support for the Shah, which discontented many Muslims). Ron Paul brought this view to light, and he was attacked by many for it, including Christian conservatives. And most libertarians (including myself) believe that economic sanctions should not be placed on Iran or any other alleged "rogue nations." Conservatives will object to this for fear of Iran's developing nuclear capabilities and for fear that Iran might use it to develop nuclear weapons and use them against America and its main ally Israel (this is due to some alleged statements that Islamic leaders have made). The accusation goes that libertarian foreign policy is naive, stupid, and immoral because it doesn't subscribe to conservative viewpoints. This is false, as I will show later in the article.

3. Libertarian views on vices, crimes, and the State are based on a moral standard other than the objective standards of God's Word. Similar to the first argument against libertarianism, they hold that since libertarianism rejects government's role in enforcing laws against vices (not including murder, theft, fraud, or other things), they are rejecting God's role for government and basing their morality on a base other than God's Word in doing so. The libertarians would say: "Government shouldn't legislate morality." By this, we mean that government shouldn't use the law to crack down and punish those who practice vices that otherwise don't infringe on other people's rights. The conservative will say, "All laws legislate morality, and all laws have a moral base. Therefore, you libertarians are hypocrites for condemning use for using the law to crack down on vices and yet saying that there is no moral basis in law." They will also say, "Since God is the author of morality, then we should codify his law into legislation, which means banning porn, prostitution, drugs, sodomy, as other stuff." They see libertarianism as hypocritical because it allegedly rejects the source of morality: God. The conservative may concede that the law might not make a person regenerate or at the very least good, but at least it prevents even further corruption. Therefore, laws against vices are moral and decent. This is also going to refuted later on.

Rebuttals

1. Because we libertarians reject the right to coerce morality, we recognize the freedom of choice (or "free will") bestowed by God on humanity, and we reject the use of statist and immoral means unto morality. Libertarians reject the use of immoral and statist means as used by leftists and conservatives to instill morality into citizens and people, because we recognize the right to freedom of choice. For the Christian libertarian, it is recognizing that humans have a free will, and that government attempts to deny this free will through legislation is wrong. The agnostic scholar Murray Rothbard said, "By attempting to compel virtue, we eliminate its possibility." And the religious scholar Frank Meyer said in his book In Defense of Freedom:

. . . freedom can exist at no lesser price than the danger of damnation; and if freedom is indeed the essence of man's being, that which distinguishes him from the beasts, he must be free to choose his worst as well as his best end. Unless he can choose his worst, he cannot choose his best. (p. 50)

Why do we say this? We say this because we recognize that freedom is part and parcel to a moral action to be truly moral and virtuous, and that if the government tries to compel morality or remove immorality, then the action is no longer truly moral nor is it truly free. Thus, while we libertarians may have differing opinions on the ethical or moral nature of an activity like prostitution, premarital and/or extramarital sex, or drug consumption, we know the the law should not use force to stop these types of activities, or the law can only be used against coercive activities (such as murder, rape, fraud, theft, or kidnapping). Vices do not fall into the realm of coercive activities, so they should not be banned by legislative fiat.

As for a Biblical case for the freedom of choice, there are many examples in Scripture in which goodness is a choice rather than a compulsory choice. Joshua 24:15 says to choose who should be served. Isaiah 7:15 says, "Choose good." And in Genesis 3, in the story of the Fall, we see God giving the freedom of choice in that he doesn't automatically use His power to kill Adam and Eve when they sinned against Him. Yes, it is true that He punished them and made them leave the Garden of Eden, and He did command them not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But there was a freedom of choice, and even when they abused it, God did not take away that freedom of choice from them. Proverbs 16:9 says this: "A man's heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps." This implies that indeed God does direct the footsteps of man and He is ultimately sovereign, but man is ultimately what plans his way as well. Actions and choices most certainly have consequences, but that does not negate God's gift of the freedom of choice at all.

But how does the issue of Romans 13 square with this? Let me say this: even if, as the conservative says, all laws legislate morality by definition, the role of government (if it is to exist at all) is to use violence only when violent aggression takes place. In Genesis 9, before the Mosaic civil codes were established, the role of violence was only limited as a punishment for prior aggression, and the only roles of violence are for self-defense and rightful punishment. And when the Mosaic Law was fulfilled and the legal and ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ, the Ten Commandments remained and so did the Noahic covenant. And not only that, the Scriptures gave us ways to deal with the immoral actions of sins committed among Christians and non-Christians: for Christians, that method is forgiveness for confessed sin and expulsion for unconfessed sins (1 Corinthians 5). So my final conclusion is that use of government force on immoral actions is not necessary and is outside the role of government.

2.  Libertarian foreign policy is the most sensible and moral foreign policy of all, contrary to claims from conservatives. The second point in my defense of the libertarian creed is with regards to foreign policy. Libertarian foreign policy, the policy of non-interventionism, is moral and compatible with Christianity and a realistic understanding of human nature, contrary to the claims of the conservative. But before we can defend the libertarian foreign policy from a Christian perspective, we must learn what it is. And since I cannot go fully in-depth into this (as many great libertarian theorists and scholars have), I will give only a brief outline of libertarian foreign policy. The essentials are:

• The policy is based on non-aggression, that no one should have the right to commit aggression against another man's life, liberty or property. Violence is limited only to the defense of life, liberty and property (or even to proper restitution and retaliatory violence).
• The application to foreign affairs is clear. No nation or State may commit aggression at all, not in the name of spreading democracy or protecting an ally, not in the name of imperialism, and not for any other supposed reason. In fact, such warfare depends on theft and taxation, which is unnecessary and wrong (unlike in voluntary revolutionary forces).
• Collective security, the idea that one nation should take the moral responsibility to fight for another nation (like country A fighting against country B to defend country C), is immoral, for it involves aggression and initiation of force.
• Nuclear weapons and aerial bombs are forbidden under libertarian standards, for not only have they opened doors for mass murder, but they also cannot be used in a libertarian manner; in other words, they cannot pinpoint to the enemies and thus avoid killing innocent non-combatants and civilians (which is a rule of just war theory)

Libertarian foreign policy is the most moral foreign policy out of all of them, for it not only recognizes the principle of non-aggression and consistently applies it, but that it is a negative expression of the Golden Rule (“don’t do to others what you would not have them do to you”). That means: no participation in coups, no support of foreign government leaders, no entangling alliances, and no imperialism. But some might say, “What about terrorists and rogue nations that threaten to kill us or might do harm to us? Then we ought to attack them preemptively, and that would be self-defense.” Such preemptive attacks fall outside the realm of self-defense, for if person A jumps out and attacks person B (who is practicing open carry), he is not justified in his attack, for there is no clear and present danger. It would be justified for A to prepare and keep watch, but it would not be justified to attack him and initiate force.

Another example would be if Jonas heard of a thief by the name of Doug who is robbing many houses and persons. Would Jonas be justified in initiating force on Doug merely because the thief threatened to rob his house? No. He would be justified in taking heed and preparing to defend himself and his family, but he would not be justified in starting violent action against Doug. In fact, Doug himself would have the right to defend his own person against Jonas in this case (though the thief would not have the right to keep what he stole).

As to the Christian argument for libertarian foreign policy, let us look at why it is compatible with Christianity;

a. Aggression is fundamentally immoral and not, for not only does it profane the image of God (Genesis 9:6-7; Exodus 20:7), but it violates the rights of others not to be aggressed against. An offensive war is based on initiation of violence, which is immoral.

b. The wars in Scripture, which are used to justify America's current wars, are not license for offensive warfare. For example, many of the Old Testament wars were only called of by Gld, and they were for specific purposes (i.e. taking the Promised Land and purging it of pagan influences). While those wars have important lessons to teach us, they are not meant to be a template for warfare per se. And even then, many of the wars God commanded had limitations, and the nation of Israel, even under a monarchy, did not wage wars against other countries to "spread God's laws." Even when they did face threats, most of the wars were solely designed as self-defense, not any grand schemes.

Laurence Vance, the great anti-war Christian writer and libertarian columnist, says of the Old Testament wars and their relation to the Christian view of war:

...it is wrong to invoke the Jewish wars of the Old Testament against the heathen as a justification for the actions of the U.S. government and its military. Although God sponsored these wars, and used the Jewish nation to conduct them, it does not follow that God sponsors American wars or that America is God’s chosen nation. The U.S. president is not Moses, Joshua, King David, or God Almighty, America is neither the nation of Israel nor God’s chosen nation, the U.S. military is not the Lord’s army, and the Lord never sanctioned any Christian to go on a crusade, commanded him to war on his behalf, or encouraged any  Christian to kill, make apologies for the killing of, or excuse the killing of any adherent to a false religion.

c. Aggressive warfare, for any reason whatsoever (even in the name of "spreading democracy and freedom" and "combatting terrorists and rogue nations"), violates the Biblical doctrines of peace and the Golden Rule. For in aggressive warfare, one is basically doing what one does not want to be done to him. 1 Peter 4:15 says not to be a busybody in the matters of other affairs and persons. An aggressive foreign policy does just precisely that.

Contrast this to the non-interventionist foreign policy, a policy that rejects entangling alliances, supports free trade among the nations, rejects aggressive warfare and limits it only to defensive purposes, and even then only uses war against enemies rather than using intimidation and killing of civilians to prove one’s point.

Laurence Vance has some wise words regarding an aggressive foreign policy as opposed to the non-interventionist policy:

A noninterventionist foreign policy is a policy of peace, neutrality, and free trade. A noninterventionist foreign policy would mean no more invasions, no more threats, no more sanctions, no more embargoes, no more foreign aid, no more spies, no more meddling, no more bullying, no more foreign entanglements, no more entangling alliances, no more military advisors, no more troops and bases on foreign soil, no more NATO-like commitments, no more trying to be the world's social worker, fireman, and policeman, no more nation building, no more peacekeeping operations, no more spreading democracy at the point of a gun, no more regime changes, no more covert actions, no more forcibly opening markets, no more enforcing UN resolutions, no more liberations, and no more shooting, bombing, maiming, and killing. A noninterventionist foreign policy would also mean no foreign aid, no humanitarian aid, no disaster relief, and no payments to the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank.

Does this mean that America should let the rest of the world starve in a famine, die of disease after a natural disaster, labor in sweatshops, participate in fraudulent elections, suffer human rights abuses, or be killed in a civil war? America yes, Americans no. The American people are a compassionate, concerned, and generous people. There would be no shortage of American people and American dollars to help the rest of the world in these situations. There would be no shortage of organizations to monitor foreign elections and point out human rights violations. But those who desire not to provide assistance should not be forced to pay for it with their tax dollars.

The United States cannot police the world. We have no right to police the world. It is the height of arrogance to try and remake the world in our image. Most of what happens in the world is none of our concern and certainly none of our business. It is not the responsibility of the United States to remove corrupt rulers and oppressive dictators from power. The kind of government a country has and the type of leader it has is the sole responsibility of the people in that country. There is absolutely no reason why the United States would be justified in attacking and invading a sovereign country — no matter what we thought of that country's ruler, system of government, treatment of women, economic policies, religious intolerance, or human rights record. If the people in a country don't like their ruler, then they should get rid of him themselves and not expect the United States to intervene. The truth of the matter is that the handful of men who hold political power in a country cannot in and of themselves compel that country's citizens to obey them in every respect. They have to have the cooperation of the people. If an individual American feels so strongly about one side in a civil war or border dispute, then he can send money to the side he favors, pray for one side to be victorious, or enlist in the army of his preferred side; that is, anything but call for sending in the U.S. Marines. How strange it is that advocates of U.S. military interventions consider us noninterventionists to be unpatriotic and anti-American when we are the ones concerned about the life of even one American being used as cannon fodder for the state. We never considered the shedding of the blood of even one American to be "worth" the latest lie that U.S. troops are dying for.

So what should the United States do? In the words of the late Murray Rothbard, the United States should "abandon its policy of global interventionism," "withdraw immediately and completely, militarily and politically, from everywhere," and "maintain a policy of strict political ‘isolation' or neutrality everywhere." Political isolation is the only isolation we desire. Our example should be a country like Switzerland. This is a country that has consistently practiced neutrality and nonintervention, and remained secure when the world was at war. The first step toward abandoning an interventionist foreign policy and completely withdrawing would be for the United States to immediately withdraw all of its forces from Iraq. But not because we have suffered too many casualties, not because there are too many insurgents, and not because the troop surge is not working — we should withdraw our troops because the war was a grave injustice, a monstrous wrong, and a great evil from the very beginning.

3. We have our differences on the morality of certain things, but we view libertarianism as a way of life, not a lifestyle. We see libertarianism as a way of approaching the proper use of coercion, force and violence. Many libertarians have differing views of the morality of certain acts, such as participation in non-martial sexual activity, prostitution, gambling, drug use, or any other things. But we are all united in our opposition of using violence to prevent such activities. That means that legislation passed to prevent this is forbidden. This section is dedicated to showing that the Christian creed not only doesn’t command the use of violence to prevent such things, but that the use of violence in these cases is actually wrong by Christian standards. As I have pointed out before, the Scriptures show us God’s gift of freedom of choice, and that we can reject compulsory morality (which is what “legislating morality” really is) and criminalization of vice.

First, compulsory legislation unto morality is immoral because, like aggressive warfare, it violates the Biblical principle of not being a busybody in other people's matters (1 Peter 4:15; 1 Timothy 4:15). And not only that, Proverbs 3:30 reminds us to “Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm.” When we depend upon compulsory legislation to use violence against sinful activity that is in no way criminal, we violate these two principles.

Second, if mankind is indeed sinful, then why should we have to trust the government, which is composed of fallible human beings, to intervene in such personal matters such as sexuality, gambling, prostitution, and other things? Murray Rothbard, while he was not a BIble-believing Christian at all, made this crucial insight when he dealt with the government and morality:

There is an odd aspect of the statist position on the enforcement of virtue that has gone unnoticed. It is bad enough, from the libertarian perspective, that the non-libertarian conservatives (along with all other breeds of statists) are eager to enforce compulsory virtue; but which group of men do they pick to do the enforcing? Which group in society are to be the guardians of virtue, the ones who define and enforce their vision of what virtue is supposed to be? None other, I would say, than the state apparatus, the social instrument of legalized violence. Now, even if we concede legitimate functions to the policeman, the soldier, the jailer, it is a peculiar vision that would entrust the guardianship of morality to a social group whose historical record for moral behavior is hardly encouraging. Why should the sort of persons who are good at, and will therefore tend to exercise, the arts of shooting, gouging, and stomping, be the same persons we would want to select as our keepers of the moral flame?

Government, while it does have the legal power to commit violence against sinners, should not have that legal power. As I have said before, freedom is part and parcel of morality, and if government attempts to coerce this morality by passing laws compelling moral actions or forbidding immoral actions, it destroys a crucial aspect of moral actions, which are done from the heart and from the free choices of man.

Third, in response to the “All laws legislate morality by definition” argument, I would say that when we argue against legislating morality, we don’t say that laws have no ethical basis, for indeed, we libertarians, for the most part, have moral views and base our view on the State and liberty on moral foundations. We say that the government should not use violence to prevent immoral actions from being practiced or to jail someone who has already committed them. The Christian libertarian viewpoint does not forbid the use of violence to defend against initiation of violence, but rather it forbids the use of violence with regards to preventing immoral and unethical actions (which are different from violent and aggressive actions in their nature). So when we libertarians oppose the use of violence to prevent such victimless actions, we are not being selective in our morality or being hypocrites at all. Rather, we recognize that only aggressive violence deserves to be punished with the use of responsive violence by either the victims or the governing agencies. This does not mean we oppose the cultivation of virtue and order, for those things can be cultivated by the church and the family and through civil organizations (that are based on voluntary organizations rather than on monopoly force). But we oppose the forced morals and virtues of the State, and this is what differentiates the libertarian from the conservative.

Conclusion

While this essay is imperfect and written by a fallible human being such as I, I have made the case for libertarianism from the perspective of a Christian understanding of human nature and morality, and I have attempted to show that libertarianism is compatible with Christianity. I have not went too much into specific issues, for that will be for other essays. And I myself have much to learn and I am never too young or too old to grow as both a Christian and as a libertarian.

But I hope that this essay will convince some to look further into libertarianism, to read writings from Christian and atheist libertarians, to delve further into Christian thought, both early and modern, to test it by Scripture, and to learn from it.

If this was not the most definitive take on the subject, then let it be a starting point for others to delve further into the subject.

Here is the link where the footnotes I intended are included into the essay.

Hobby Lobby Case Is About Rights, Not Contraceptives

"Hobby Lobby Case Is About Rights, Not Contraceptives"

by

Ron Paul

© 2013 Ron Paul. Reprinted from The-Free-Foundation.org

Introductory Note from Anand Venigalla: The Hobby Lobby case, which has been a controversial issue in our political culture, is representative of a larger issue; that issue is whether or not the state should force businesses to provide contraceptive services for their employees, and it becomes large especially when it is applied to churches and religious groups. Ron Paul reminds us that this issue is ultimately a freedom issue, and that all the other issues, while important, shouldn't distract us from this truth. So I have decided to reprint his recent column for reading.

One of the most important cases the US Supreme Court will consider this term is Hobby Lobby’s lawsuit challenging the Obamacare mandate that employer-provided health care plans must cover abortion and contraceptives. Hobby Lobby, a corporation owned and managed by a traditional Christian family, argues that the mandate violates their First Amendment rights.

Much of the discussion has focused on whether a corporation such as Hobby Lobby can even have First Amendment rights. But the issue of “corporate personhood” is a smokescreen. Hobby Lobby’s corporate status has no bearing on whether under Obamacare, Hobby Lobby’s owners, about whose personhood there is no doubt, have a right to run their business in a manner consistent with their moral beliefs. If the form by which Hobby Lobby did business was relevant to its right to operate free of federal interference, then Hobby Lobby could avoid the Obamacare mandate by simply reorganizing itself as a partnership or sole proprietorship.

Some Obamacare supporters cast this case as a conflict between Hobby Lobby’s First Amendment rights and the rights of its employees to contraception and abortion. Hobby Lobby is not trying to stop its employees from obtaining contraceptives and abortions; it is simply asking that the government not force it to pay for them.

Forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for abortion services is especially offensive because Hobby Lobby’s owners consider abortion a form of murder. Those who, like me, agree that abortion is an act of violence against an innocent person, will side with Hobby Lobby. However, this case is not about the legality of abortion. It is about whether someone can have a “right” to force someone else to provide him with a good or service. Therefore, even those who support legal abortion should at least support a business’s right to choose to not subsidize it.

Supporters of the mandate claim Congress has the power to create rights to privately-provided goods and services. They also say that Congress has the power to legislatively override the rights of religious liberty, property, and contract. It is fair to ask what is the source of Congress’s power to create new rights. It certainly does not originate in the Declaration of Independence, which expressly denies that rights come from the government; or from the United Stares Constitution, which nowhere granted government the power to redistribute or create artificial rights.

The principle that Government can force businesses to violate their religious principals even if those principles conflict with civil law could be applied in ways some Obamacare supporters may find objectionable. For example, what if the government argued that the Pentagon’s need for some products produced by a Quaker-owned business trumped the Quaker owner’s objections to war?

The hypothetical example above shows just how radical and dangerous are arguments in support of the Obamacare abortion and contraception mandate. If Hobby Lobby loses, the US Supreme Court will have endorsed the idea that the federal government can force individuals to violate their most sacred religious principles to satisfy any government demands. The central question of the Hobby Lobby case, then, is whether religious liberty will continue to be meaningful in this country. For what good is a religious liberty that protects your rights to attend a worship service, but allows the government to force you to live in opposition to the values preached at those services? This is why all supporters of liberty and limited government—regardless of their views on the morality of contraception—should be on the side of Hobby Lobby.