Lately I’ve been trying to hone my political convictions into some semblance of a coherent philosophy. One of the ways I've approached this task is to compare it to other views and analyze the similarities and differences. Since I’m both politically conservative and an evangelical Christian I understand how these beliefs mesh and, to what extent they can, cohere into a general philosophy. And while I disagree with much of their reasoning and conclusions, I have a modest understanding of the views of politically liberal Christians.
When it comes to Christian libertarianism, though, I’m a bit baffled. It’s not that I don’t think that Christians can be libertarian. In fact, I think that by applying Christian ethics to the political philosophy it would solve many of the criticisms I have with the libertarian position. I’m just a bit vague on how Christian thought is applied to libertarianism in order to transform it into a unique political stance. (I’m assuming, of course, that the “term” Christian isn’t simply being used as a generic modifier.)
I’d be interested in hearing the thoughts of those who apply this label to their own beliefs. In particular, I’m curious to know how it differs from conservatism and/or liberalism.
Can anyone help me out? Vox? Josh? Anybody?
Update: Vox Day, a columnist for World Net Daily, provides a very well-reasoned answer to my question. In response to some of the comments that follow he added that, "the official Libertarian Party is agnostic on abortion. Neither pro nor anti. Christian libertarians are against it, of course."
1
I disagree with Christopher. Libertarianism is prolife since it's main values is the right to life and property, and I'd also add personal responsibility.
Since that is the case, it is NEVER right to murder unborn babies according to libertarian thought. And indeed, according to scripture, we are told to stand up for those who are being driven to slaughter, the oppressed, etc..this includes unborn babies.
No, never let people kill their babies in utero..what's next, are 'Christian' libertarians going to stand up for mothers killing their newborn babies in their cribs?
That is not the libertarian idea of 'freedom'. Freedom, the Christian understanding of it, can only be gained through the Holy Spirit..so government by itself cannot be the arbiter of such freedom..the political understanding of it is deliverance from the control of other humans.
Sorry, I didn't quite answer the question in the blog..I think Vox did an excellent job on his own. :) I just wanted to respond to Christopher's comment about letting people kill their babies. I don't see what is so 'Christian' about it...
posted on 01.14.2004 4:06 PM2
Sarah:
If you think Libertarians oppose abortion, you'd be wrong. Check their party platform and you'll see that they're neutral on the subject. The only abortions they openly oppose are state-funded or state-mandated ones. Otherwise, their official stance is "it's none of the government's business." Which is actually their stance on almost every issue. ;)
posted on 01.14.2004 6:14 PM3
tgirsch,
I couldn't care less about the libertarian party platform. It is the philosophy itself that matters most and as such, the philosophy (the basic tenets of it) is prolife.
I do not support the libertarian party as it exists now because it is not faithful to the principles for which it claims to stand for, but believe it or not tgirsch, there are forces within the libertarian party trying to change this.
www.l4l.org
Doris Gordon, actually an athiest, established that organization. She's a pretty interesting person. Prolife Libertarians within the party, as expressed in this website, are making some headway knowing that libertarianism does endorse the right to life of all human beings (except for unborn children). The website also shows the rationale behind this.
'Which is actually their stance on almost every issue. ;)'
Thanks, but that is not true...do they endorse government being involved in vandalism cases or when mothers kill their fully born babies? Yes..if it is libertarian to prosecute when mothers kill their own children in their own home, it is also libertarian to prosecute folks who kill children while they are within their mother's wombs.
And I speak as a chick who values personal autonomy, women's rights, and reproductive rights (the right to contraception).
God bless ya, tgirsch...*S*
Sarah
posted on 01.14.2004 7:00 PM4
Sarah:
The fact is that libertarians (both capital-L and small-l) endorse "as few laws as possible," and that generally extends to abortion. The libertarians who believe that abortion should be against the law are decidedly in the minority. That's not to say that most libertarians support abortion; I'd venture to guess that it's roughly 50/50.
posted on 01.14.2004 9:38 PM5
I have always believed that political liberalism and evangelical Christianity are mutually exclusive. The reason has to do with the cultural divide that exists between the two. Consider: a conservative believes that the individual is supreme, and that his actions, rewards, and consequences should be in proportion to his choices and deeds. A liberal believes that society is primarily responsible for the actions of the individual. Therefore, a person charged with a capital crime would be sent to the chair by the conservative, whereas the liberal is more likely to introduce cultural reasons why the person committed the crime.
Did you achieve great wealth? The conservative says that you should be allowed to keep as much of it as possible--you earned it. The liberal says that it is only because of the education you received (from the state) or from the privilege of living here (guaranteed by the state) or the workers you employ (protected by the state) that you have come about it. Tax policy, therefore, should reflect that fact in a "progressive" way.
Unwanted pregnancy? Welfare to illegals? Mandatory housing for the homeless? Bi-lingual education? Right to carry firearms? Military funding?--all these issues that divide conservatives from liberals can be viewed through the prism of individual responsibility, and the proper role of the government in securing freedom and liberty for its citizens.
How does this relate to Christianity? I study the Scriptures daily, and know that "to each is appointed once to die, then the judgment." At that time, the choices the person has made will be what determines his eternal destination: did he follow God's law of salvation, and for living, or not?
It is no accident that liberals are the ones who cannot see the Bible as literal, or can even imagine a literal heaven and hell. They are the ones who bend Scripture to their lifestyles, instead of the other way around. It is an affront to their political philosophies that God's laws, if followed, WILL result in eternal life, and failure to follow them WILL result in eternal destruction. To them, too many other factors share in the blame (bad parents, a crummy education system, genetics) or in the success (good parents, a good education, luck) of an individual to have it all come down to an arbitrary, unseen God to decide.
Libertarians are of another breed, harder to figure out. Neil Boortz is a popular Libertarian talk show host, and I would imagine he is representative of Libertarians in general. I listen to his show while on the road, which is pretty often. They believe, if I have this right, that the role of government should be limited to protecting the borders and the soundness of the currency. Enforcing criminal and property laws. And, well, not much else. The idea that a person's religious or personal beliefs can be codified into enforceable law is anathema to the Libertarians. The problem arises when they fail to see how public policy is best met with moral law.
Let's look at abortion as an example. Whatever they might feel about abortion personally, is there not a legitimate state and societal interest in, say, requiring a 14-year old child to inform her parents of her intent to have an abortion? If no, may a child elect to have a breast enlargement without similar parental notification? What happens when the laws that Libertarians loathe because it mirrors a particular group's religious teaching gets overturned, and in so doing deprives the Libertarians a fundamental right of parents-- to know the medical conditions of their minor children?
I believe that Liberarianism is incompatible with Christianity. Too much of the Old Testament promises that God's blessings are rich for the nations that honor Him, and, for those who don't, His judgment awaits. It is no less true in our personal lives.
posted on 01.15.2004 11:31 AM6
'As tgirsch rightly pointed out, libertarians are officially neutral on the subject of abortion.'
*sigh* and I also said that to me, it had nothing to do with party affiliation. I also said that I don't support the Libertarian Party..just the libertarian philosophy. Of course, I have struggled with it..because of Romans 13..mostly..whether I should be conservative but now, I'm leaning the other way.
'The fact is that libertarians (both capital-L and small-l) endorse "as few laws as possible," and that generally extends to abortion.'
And I explained tgirsch why that is the case. It is very simplistic to just say that they want as few laws as possible...and that is true but they are not approaching anarchism, they believe that laws should only extend where rights to life, and property are violated. Most also believe in laws that force parents (basically) to take care of their children and to treat them well..which is why they agree with laws banning child abuse or neglect. If they were faithful to their own reasonings (right to life and property), then they would support abortion laws as well. I don't think anyone is understanding my post at all. I was describing libertarianism as a *principle*.
'The libertarians who believe that abortion should be against the law are decidedly in the minority.'
That has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. All I was saying is that libertarianism, by it's very tenets, is prolife. I was not talking about the Libertarian Party or people who call themselves 'libertarian' who may be practicing cognitive dissonance where abortion is concerned.
You are talking about the opinions of other people, and that really has no objective bearing. Those libertarians (including the Libertarian Party) who support abortion remaining legal are not living up to the principles for which they stand for. That is all that I said.
If you are going to argue that it is libertarian to keep abortion legal, then argue from that philosophical point of view..don't tell me what 'most' libertarians believe, or the Party platform, or make a general statement (without qualification as to why they believe some laws should be on the books). One could similarly argue that it is libertarian to believe that stealing should be legal because they believe in having as few laws as possible...
GB,
Sarah
posted on 01.15.2004 11:58 AM7
Kevin W.:
I have always believed that political liberalism and evangelical Christianity are mutually exclusive. The reason has to do with the cultural divide that exists between the two. Consider: a conservative believes that the individual is supreme, and that his actions, rewards, and consequences should be in proportion to his choices and deeds. A liberal believes that society is primarily responsible for the actions of the individual. Therefore, a person charged with a capital crime would be sent to the chair by the conservative, whereas the liberal is more likely to introduce cultural reasons why the person committed the crime.
Did you achieve great wealth? The conservative says that you should be allowed to keep as much of it as possible--you earned it.Huh? Have you read the same scriptures I have?
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
John 8:7
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."Pretty hard to square with capital punishment and earthly wealth being okay. The latter essentially commands people who are able to help the poor, and is so important that three out of four gospels mention it.
Matt 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25
It is no accident that liberals are the ones who cannot see the Bible as literal, or can even imagine a literal heaven and hell.It seems that you are the one who is literally ignoring Jesus' lessons. People in glass houses, and all that... posted on 01.15.2004 4:17 PM
8
Ah. And your response is typical of the liberals' reticence to punish at all, and you make my point for me. "Let he who is without sin be first to cast a stone" . . . why not just empty every prison on earth, since there is only One who is without sin? That would, after all, be a "literal" application of Jesus' words, as you misunderstand them. Don't forget: much of Jesus' ministry was devoted to delivering people from the false holiness of the Pharisees and the Sadduccees--it was they who were advocating the stoning of the woman, while Christ was scribbling the hidden sins of the woman's accusers in the dirt before them. One by one, the accusers turn away.
And, Jesus' cautionary words about wealth is not a prescription for an increase in the marginal income tax rates, as libs would have you believe: they are a warning that, as man becomes more and more comfortable, he is more apt to believe that his wealth is a substitute of God's providence in his life. He can buy his way out of trouble, and into excess. The Bible is full of stories of noble and righteous men who were breathtakingly rich (Job, Joseph, David, Asa, Jehosaphat) and, ominously, those who acted wickedly, despite God's blessings (Solomon, Ahab, and a whole line of Judaic and Israelite kings).
I do try to apply the teachings of the Word in my own life, with varying degrees of success. The missive posted above reflects my own experiences with liberals, who generally fail to see Absolute Truth at any level, Biblical or otherwise.
posted on 01.15.2004 4:42 PM9
It should be pointed out the "eye of the needle" comment was addressed to the disciples who had just seen a rich man reject following Christ in exchange for his wealth. Nowhere in the Bible are all Christians commanded to sell all they have and follow Christ as a general prerequisite.
And one does not have to look too far to see that the poor are often far more receptive to the gospel message than the rich.
Kevin's words clearly showed in context the idea that the conservative should keep what he has earned as opposed to the government taxing more and more of it. Kevin did not suggest that this negated the Bible teaching of the proper, charitable usage of wealth by Christians.
posted on 01.15.2004 5:28 PM10
Kevin:
And your response is typical of the liberals' reticence to punish at all, and you make my point for me.No, you're putting words in my mouth. The subject at hand (and you brought it up) was capital punishment. Jesus never says all punishment is wrong, but that parable ought to make clear to anybody who's paying attention that the Old Testament requirements for punishment by death have been rescinded.
That would, after all, be a "literal" application of Jesus' words...But, but... Every word of the Bible is literally true! There's no room for (mis)interpretation.
The Bible is full of stories of noble and righteous men who were breathtakingly rich...What the Bible is full of is contradictions, a fact which most Christians are willing to readily admit.
The missive posted above reflects my own experiences with liberals, who generally fail to see Absolute Truth at any level, Biblical or otherwise.Well and good. Just understand that you make such broad generalizations at your own peril. Jesus was a liberal Jew, after all.
Steve:
It should be pointed out the "eye of the needle" comment was addressed to the disciples who had just seen a rich man reject following Christ in exchange for his wealth. Nowhere in the Bible are all Christians commanded to sell all they have and follow Christ as a general prerequisite.Thank you. That's another wonderful example of how to explain away those passages we don't care for. "Jesus was just talking about that one guy! Not me!" Never mind the fact that Jesus didn't say it was easier for the camel to go through the eye of the needle for that rich guy to enter the Kingdom of God -- he said "a rich man" which most english-speakers understand to be a general, and not a specific term.
Kevin's words clearly showed in context the idea that the conservative should keep what he has earned as opposed to the government taxing more and more of it.Render unto Caesar... oh, never mind.
Christopher:
I too struggle to understand how an Evangelical Christian could identify as a political liberal, especially as liberal political philosophy is practiced in America today.Liberals are more likely to favor a social safety net than are conservatives, and are more likely to ascribe to the "treat the least among you as you would the best among you" that Jesus repeatedly demonstrated first-hand. I don't think it's puzzling at all. If I had to make a guess at where the disconnect is, it's that evangelicals generally are far more concerned with the teachings of Paul than with those of Jesus. posted on 01.15.2004 10:52 PM
11
Thank you. That's another wonderful example of how to explain away those passages we don't care for. "Jesus was just talking about that one guy! Not me!" Never mind the fact that Jesus didn't say it was easier for the camel to go through the eye of the needle for that rich guy to enter the Kingdom of God -- he said "a rich man" which most english-speakers understand to be a general, and not a specific term.
posted on 01.16.2004 12:38 AM