Conservatism and Libertarianism: Some Thoughts on James Miller's Defense of Conservatism

James E. Miller, the culturally conservative libertarian anarchist and prolific author, argued in a recent article that libertarians should not ditch conservatism, in response to libertarian writer Chris Rossini's suggestion that conservatism should be ditched.

He argued that conservatives and libertarians are allies (though not exactly through the same "natural allies" argument used as of old).

First, the start was David Brooks's article in USA Today arguing that social welfare statismt is compatible with conservatism, and that conservatives should be like liberals and become part of the "social justice" phenomenon (which has taken various forms in the Christian community). Chris Rossini effectively responded to the pro-state arguments of Brooks, and Rossini then argued that libertarianism and conservatism should not always be together, echoing the Catholic anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell's argument that there comes a time in every freedom lover's life that he should detach himself from conservatism.

James Miller, however, does not seem to think that is the case. While he is opposed to the modern conservative support for war, government, crony capitalism, and banks, and while he can't exactly be considered a conservative himself ("Old-style conservativism is traditionally in favor of a restrained foreign policy. On other issues however, it concedes to aggression"), he does feel that conservatism, as it is not strictly confined to political philosophy, can be matched together with libertarianism. The purpose of this article, then, is not to condemn moral values but to show that conservatism is not compatible with libertarianism, and that it is right for libertarians to detach themselves from conservatism (though this is not to condemn conditional and temporary alliances with them).

How Do We Define Conservatism?

The definition of conservatism is important before one can enter fully into a discussion of conservative-libertarian relations. The word "conservative" usually means holding to traditional values and being wary of change (though not entirely hostile to it). It can mean "sober or conventional" or whatnot. In polity, conservatism means a policy that favors the promotion of tradition through the State, and while conservatives may disagree as to what degree traditional institutions should be promoted by the State, but ultimately conservative polity is about government promoting morality and not merely limiting itself to defending life, liberty and property. Conservative polity can in essence be considered a moral activist program for government that is not entirely in line with the libertarian insistence on the non-aggression axiom and opposition to enforced and coerced morals.

Chris Rossini, in his rebuttal to conservative "social justice" activism, sees conservatism as not all that different from leftism, and I agree in the sense that both political ideologies advocate statism and activism, only in differing forms.

James E. Miller, coming to the defense of conservatism, contrasts conservatism and libertarianism by saying, "The latter [libertarianism] is a political philosophy while the former is something of much more complexity and breadth [conservatism]." On the surface level I agree, for social and cultural conservatives can be libertarians, provided that they stick to the non-aggression principle, oppose victimless-crime laws due to a consistent limited-government/libertarian philosophy and reject interventionism in foreign affairs. And libertarianism does not equal socially liberal values and does not need to be made "thick," despite what some libertarians or non-libertairans will have you believe.

But the real issue with libertarian objections to conservatism is not so much to conservatism as an abstract theory as it is political conservatism, the use of force to enforce conservative values. Many libertarians who hold to socially and/or culturally conservative mores and advocate for them hold the same view too, and Murray Rothbard, himself no social liberal, was a critic of political conservatism and found it to be incompatible with libertarianism. In his critique of John Hosper's pro-war theory, he said this: "Between Conservatism and Libertarianism there are numerous and grave inner contradictions, and the attempt to mix the two will lead inevitably to grave problems and anomalies." So, the objection is really to the conservative advocacy of forced morality, not morality or traditional values per se (though some libertarians do take it to this extreme). 

James Miller later goes on to say:

Conservatism, at its best, is the wisdom to be suspicious of grand proclamations of the state’s efficacy. But it also extends further: it’s a disposition that recognizes man’s flawed abilities and doesn’t heartily celebrate progress, whether it be material, scientific, or knowledgeable. It holds onto tradition because of the guiding light it has provided for centuries before. That doesn’t mean a conservative is correct to oppose all new declarations of liberty. But it acts as a strong bulwark against the insidious longings of thought leaders who want tyrannical lordship over freedom.

This may be true for some conservatives, but political conservatism is essentially a pretentious philosophy, using moral principles and skepticism for all declarations of progress as a basis to attack libertarian principles in the name of "morality." Political conservatives often put faith in the State as a locus of morality, and it perverts tradition (which may or may not be good) and uses it as a reason to support an institutionalized institution of aggression and exploitation. The conservative is not merely a traditionalist (in fact, libertarians can be strong traditionalists) but rather a statist as well. 

The libertarian historian Ralph Raico says of conservatives in his response to a conservative scholar:

A final aspect of van den Haag’s attack deserves extended comment. It is an old conservative swindle, going back to Edmund Burke. It has been customary for conservatives to lay claim to our whole social inheritance of traditions, meanwhile asserting that libertarians — or classical liberals, or French philosophes — are aiming at the total destruction of all tradition. In that time-honored spirit, van den Haag states: "Libertarians are antinomians, i.e., opposed to law and traditional institutions … Libertarianism is opposed to all conservative traditions, to tradition itself” (emphasis added). 

Now, I must confess that when I read this, I was filled with astonishment. Can this really be true? Are we really such barbarians? After all, there are many different sorts of traditions; many of them obviously desirable. Can libertarians actually want to destroy all of them? Are libertarians looking forward, for instance, to the day when the tradition of cello-playing finally dies out? When literary critics no longer give a damn for the life of the English language? When friends no longer help each other out in trouble, or celebrate a marriage or the birth of a child? Are we all gleefully anticipating the moment when the last practitioner of French cuisine expires in bitterness and despair? (As far as that last one goes, I have to say, No way! I happen to know all of the top libertarians, and I’ve never met a group more sincerely appreciative of good food, and especially of French cuisine.) All of these represent traditions; and the cello-haters have yet to emerge as an important faction within the movement. So, when van den Haag says that we oppose "tradition itself," what can he mean? 

It soon becomes clear what it is that troubles van den Haag, as it troubles other conservatives. Under libertarianism, he complains, "Society is denied the ability to impose or even publicly cultivate norms and bonds. Only individuals and private groupings can do so" (emphasis added). For conservatives, on the other hand, he says, "institutions form a social order, ultimately articulated and defended in essential respects by the state, through the monopoly of legitimate coercive power exercised by its government." 

Well, as you can see — things are becoming a little clearer. It isn’t after all "tradition itself" that van den Haag is defending against the Visigothic hordes of the libertarian movement. Nor does he really believe that we want to deny the right of non-governmental groups publicly to cultivate social norms — no libertarian would use force, for instance, to prevent Jehovah’s Witnesses from renting Yankee Stadium. What worries van den Haag is that, with the growing influence of our movement, coerced, state-en forced traditions are now threatened and may not survive.

Murray Rothbard also said in his critique of the doctrine of conservative-libertarian "fusionism":

In choosing political or social positions, two alternatives have been offered: custom or tradition on the one hand, the use of reason to discern natural laws and rights on the other; in short, tradition, or the use of reason to discern abstract principles on which to stand one's ground outside the customs of time and place. Here, too, is a profound difference between traditionalist and libertarian. The traditionalist is at bottom an empiricist, distrusting rational abstraction and principle, and wrapping himself in the custom of his particular society. The libertarian, as Lord Acton stated, "wishes for what ought to be, irrespective of what is." Or, as Gertrude Himmelfarb has summed up Acton's viewpoint, "the past was allowed no authority except as it happened to conform to morality."

Also he says:

Are there any other obeisances that libertarians may properly make to tradition? Simply to say that, in life, not all questions are matters of moral principle. There are numerous areas of life where people live by habit and custom, where the custom can neither be called moral or immoral, and where pursuit of custom eases the tensions of social life and makes for a more comfortable and harmonious society. It would be a false and perverted rationalism to say that any custom which cannot be proven on some other ground to be "rational" must go by the board. We can then conclude as follows: (a) that custom must be voluntarily upheld and not enforced by coercion; and (b) that people would be well advised (although not forced) to begin with a presumption in favor of custom, other things being equal. In a world, for example, where every man takes off his hat in the presence of ladies, an individual should be free not to do so, but at the risk of being generally judged a boor. If, on the other hand, this person's constitution is such that he would be likely to suffer a bad cold by exposing his pate, then we have here a higher moral consideration overriding the social harmonies of custom.

The fact that conservatives are often supporters of statism should make one think twice before considering a conservative-libertarian alliance, because the conservative philosophy is rooted in a markedly different philosophy (statism) and the libertarian philosophy (liberty) is not the same as the conservative philosophy.

Later on, Miller states:

The conservative cause isn’t to eschew every new idea or technological innovation because it threatens a way of life ingrained in society over the course of a few millennia. It says that we will forever be flawed beings, and that caution should be intertwined with prudence. Libertarians who desire true human liberty would be naïve to immediately accept any kind of change because it comes off as freeing. If freedom is precious, it should be treated as such and not taken for granted.

I understand that the conservative ideology as Miller describes is perfectly compatible with libertarianism's non-aggression principle. But the political conservative ideal is just that: rejection of any ideal that doesn't subscribe to their statist ideals of coerced morality and statism as a locus for moral value. While libertarianism shouldn't accept every single change, it doesn't mean that we should jump on the conservative bandwagon. There is a happy balance: treating freedom as precious and being skeptical of statist changes while accepting any change in the direction of liberty and freedom from the State. 

So, while I do appreciate skepticism of certain reforms, it is my conclusion that libertarianism and conservatism are both compatible and incompatible. If conservatism is social and cultural conservatism, then it is compatible with libertarianism. However, if conservatism branches out into political conservatism, then it becomes incompatible with libertarianism and should be discarded as such.

I would like to close with Lew Rockwell's words here:

What does conservatism today stand for? It stands for war. It stands for power. It stands for spying, jailing without trial, torture, counterfeiting without limit, and lying from morning to night.

There comes a time in the life of every believer in freedom when he must declare, without any hesitation, to have no attachment to the idea of conservatism.

What Is Statism?

"Statism" is a loaded political term that has much popularity among those who oppose the term and what it stands for. "Statism" describes people that have faith in the State and support its role in social and economic affairs, typically left-wingers such as Paul Krugman and others. But what is statism, really? What is it, and why is it so evil?

To fully understand statism, one should understand what the State is. The State, as defined by libertarian scholars, is the organization of "political means," an organization that has delegated itself the sole authority to provide services such as police, the military and other services. While it may or may not involve itself in other areas of life, a State always has a monopoly on the use of force and the production of security. It has delegated to itself territory over which it may rule. 

It is not formed through a voluntary exchange or through productive means but rather through exploitation. The State cannot own resources, so it must depend upon those of its citizens and those of others to survive. It can exist be it bad or good because it is not subject to the conditions that the free market would enforce on a voluntarily formed organization. For unlike something formed from economic, productive means, the State is the organization of political and exploitative forces. One cannot refuse taxation without facing force from State officials. And no State will ever give up its own power voluntarily.

Murray Rothbard said of the State in his classic essay "The Anatomy of the State," "The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively "peaceful" the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. "

A statist, then, is a person who believes in the force of the State to control a person's life, liberty and property in ways that are not strictly confined to abiding by the non-aggression axiom ("no aggression against life, liberty, or property"). The statist would support a monopoly on police force, courts and law. He would also support an expansive state that is not limited in size or scale. The statist also has faith in the State as a locus (or at times the locus) of moral value and order. He may or may not support intrusion into the bedroom or into one's personal habits, but the statist is one who loves the State and loves what the organization stands for, be it out of ignorance or deliberate intention.

Can Conservatives Be Called Statists?

Conservatives of the American kind are usually considered to be champions of limited government and traditional American values, so labeling them statists would seem odd to others (who are not libertarians). But are conservatives really in favor of limited government when they support legislation that will use the power of the State to crack down on personal immorality? How can conservatives be called "champions of limited government" when they support wars of intervention in the name of "spreading democracy" or "sending a message of disapproval for tyrannical actions" or "cracking down on those A-rabs?"

As I defined statism, as conservatives typically see the State as necessary for moral flourishing, this alone should qualify them as statists, for unlike the libertarian and anti-statist, the conservative sees the state as inherently good, a flawed institution, but a good institution, and that without the State, immorality will flourish and chaos will ensue. This is the trait of all statists, and thus conservatives, apart from their support for the State, cannot be called "limited-government people," for if a person wants to truly subscribe to the doctrine of "limited government" (which I believe is an ideological and practical unicorn) he must reject the role of the State in intervening in personal and foreign affairs. He must support a government strictly limited to the defense of private property and the rights of individuals ("rights" being defined as those things which defend the individual from aggression and which leave him otherwise free). 

Can "Liberals" Be Called Statists?

"Left-liberals" are seen as being defenders of freedom because they are generally friendly to civil liberties and most defend freedom of speech and civil liberties. However, they support government restrictions on economic liberties in the name of equality and sometimes they support other "egalitarian" and "politically correct" legislation. They also tend to support universal healthcare laws such as the Affordable Care Act, public schooling, labor unions and taxes.

Also, while the conservative supports intervention in foreign affairs and personal lives, liberals are inconsistent because they support restrictions on economic liberties and thus can be called statists, since liberals believe in using State power to restrict productive activity in the name of fairness and goodness, and the liberal sees the State as the locus of equality and fairness and that without it chaos would ensue. Thus, while liberals accuse conservatives of "legislating morality," (and rightly so, but on wrong foundation), the liberal supports "legislating morality" in that he or she wants to use the State to restrict activity that they find evil.

The Errors of Statism

Why is statism erroneous? What makes it so bad, even when it is package in such moral and practical terms? The basic reason is that statism puts faith in few human beings to run other human beings and rule them in the name of order when in fact such rulership is exercised through exploitation and parasitism.

#1. Statism is wrong because it supports legalized exploitation. Statism is wrong because in an attempt to bring stability to society, it puts trust in select rulers to lord power over other men. Some might say that Romans 13, a biblical passage, justifies this and that if one opposes this exploitation then one is opposing The LORD God himself. But even if the State were "ordained," it was ordained in the sense that God has included it in His plan for humanity and uses it for His glory, not that He justifies the very existence of such an institution. Revelation 13 details statism in its fullest form, with the Antichrist lording absolute power over peoples and exercising the power of central planning. And when the devil tempted Jesus, he implies that all the kingdoms of the earth, the States, belonged to him and that if Jesus bowed down and worshipped him then all the kingdoms of the earth would be given to Him (Matthew 4). Also, never in history has the State voluntarily given up power. The only ways it dissolved were through war, revolution and secession/decentralization. 

#2. Statism is wrong because it rejects that society and individuals can manage themselves through God-given/natural mechanisms. One of the crucial insights of libertarian/classical-liberal theory is that society doesn't need to be managed through central planning and through oligarchy; rather, society can be self-managing. This idea translated into Hayek's doctrine of spontaneous order, the doctrine that describes order emerging spontaneously, without a central planner. While one could say God created order and thus He is a "central planner," the doctrine of spontaneous order teaches that the state is artificial and that order can arise naturally without the use of exploitation and force. The late libertarian Leonard E. Read explained the doctrine of spontaneous order in his classic essay "I, Pencil," 

There is a fact still more astounding: the absence of a mastermind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work. This is the mystery to which I earlier referred.

It has been said that "only God can make a tree." Why do we agree with this? Isn't it because we realize that we ourselves could not make one? Indeed, can we even describe a tree? We cannot, except in superficial terms. We can say, for instance, that a certain molecular configuration manifests itself as a tree. But what mind is there among men that could even record, let alone direct, the constant changes in molecules that transpire in the life span of a tree? Such a feat is utterly unthinkable!

I, Pencil, am a complex combination of miracles: a tree, zinc, copper, graphite, and so on. But to these miracles that manifest themselves in nature an even-more-extraordinary miracle has been added: the configuration of creative human energies — millions of tiny know-hows configurating naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and in the absence of any human masterminding! Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me. Man can no more direct these millions of know-hows to bring me into being than he can put molecules together to create a tree.

The above is what I meant when writing, "If you can become aware of the miraculousness that I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing." For, if one is aware that these know-hows will naturally, yes, automatically, arrange themselves into creative and productive patterns in response to human necessity and demand — that is, in the absence of governmental or any other coercive masterminding — then one will possess an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith.

Once government has had a monopoly of a creative activity such, for instance, as the delivery of the mails, most individuals will believe that the mails could not be efficiently delivered by men acting freely. And here is the reason: each one acknowledges that he himself doesn't know how to do all the things incident to mail delivery. He also recognizes that no other individual could do it. These assumptions are correct. No individual possesses enough know-how to perform a nation's mail delivery any more than any individual possesses enough know-how to make a pencil. Now, in the absence of faith in free people — in the unawareness that millions of tiny know-hows would naturally and miraculously form and cooperate to satisfy this necessity — the individual cannot help but reach the erroneous conclusion that mail can be delivered only by governmental "masterminding."

Read concludes his essay by saying this:

The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth.

This can square nicely with the Christian doctrine, as many have shown, for God created man and has given him abilites to reason and think, putting him above the other creations of God. Even with the sinful nature of man, God still has not taken away these gifts from man, and my perspective is that without a state, man can use his innate abilities to develop order apart from the use of exploitation. Statism rejects this in favor of an exploitative institution in the name of order. It rejects the possiblity of order outside of State exploitation, and it gives power to a few people to lord power over other people, another reason why statism is immoral.

Conclusion

This very brief article didn't delve as much into the nuances of statism as I would have liked, but I hope that this piece would be a starting point for further discussion among Christians, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists/voluntaryists, conservatives, liberals and all kinds of folks who love dealing with political issues. Statism, while seemingly attractive and promising of order and stability, is immoral, impractical and unethical; it negates productivity in defense of exploitative force and it destablizes true order in favor of artificial order. It would do us well to abandon statism and try freedom.

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.