1

If libertarianism is limited to a philosophy of civil government, then it seems entirely compatible with Christianity. Libertarianism doesn't require that people act as selfish individuals. It simply permits them to. Christian communities (and even communes) and selfless acts of generosity are, of course, permitted in a libertarian political system, but non-Christians would not be forced to live under a Christian system of ethics.

Arguments that Christianity is incompatible with libertarianism can also be applied to conservatism and liberalism. I suspect that conservatism and liberalism are less compatible with Christianity, because both systems place more emphasis on the importance of the government for enforcing righteousness.

2

Don't you mean it convicted your conscience?

You may be theologically superior, but I'll take you on language and grammar. ;-)

Thanks for the link, you heretic.

3

Thanks for the link on our ID carnival. I don't plan on publishing it before sometimes tomorrow, so if anyone wants to submit a post, they can still make it.

4

My eyes began to bleed and my stomach began to ache

I hope that was because I'm still messing around with the layout; it's still not quite stable. I was going to officially announce the launch tomorrow - but I've got some old content up now, so anyone is free to drop on by.

Thanks for the plug. Hope that stomach thing clears up.

5

Jared Don't you mean it convicted your conscience?

Er, I was using the British spelling. (A legalistic view of grammar and spelling is another sign of apostasy.)

Krauze Thanks for the link on our ID carnival.

Sorry I didn't mention it sooner. Let me know when you prepare the next one.

Kevin Thanks for the plug. Hope that stomach thing clears up.

It was probably a left over reaction from reading the Huffington Blog. Who knows, once I read more of your new site I might find that we agree on some bioethical issues. ; )

6

Thanks for the link Joe.

7

I’m rather surprised by the number of Greek Orthodox and Unitarians included [in the Senate].

Ever been to a Greek Orthodox wedding? It's an amazing affair complete with crowns for the bride and groom. And their chruches are gorgeous in a rococo kind of way.

8

Joe,

The point I was making was that libertarians are concerned with three things that conservatives are not: the areas of competence for the state, the effect that state power has on human nature and the very nature of the state itself. These are very relevant issues for any Christian trying to establish an understanding of the role of the state in a society that is trying to be decent because the state can be either the great benefactor of public safety and peace, or an unholy terror that criminals could never match. The Soviets probably murdered more of their own people than criminals in all of Europe, the USA, Canada and Japan (maybe even Mexico too) during the time period of their regime's existance.

We take a longterm historical view of the state and find that it is nowhere near as rosy as many "traditionalists" believe. We don't deny that problems exist on both sides, and freely admit that libertarianism is just the "least evil of the choices." Part of what I wanted to get across was that Christians cannot legislate Christianity in a society that isn't almost 100% Christian because it work as well as Christians trying to enforce communism or Sharia. Would the average conservative Christian want to have the Mosaic Law enforced by a secular atheist? I DON'T THINK SO...

I have had my own experiences with bad parenting and I know from experience that the state couldn't stop them without making things worse. My father was a very verbally and spiritually abusive alcoholic, but my mother was the one who was there for me an supported me. Things weren't bad enough to justify me being taken away or him going to jail, and if the family had been broken apart, I probably would have ended up in prison today.

I think that conservatives place too much faith in the family as a unit. In my experience, what people really need is love and support, and I got that mostly from my mom's family and my friends. My immediately family life was often bad, and as I became a teen and went to college, it became very bad. It got so bad that the first time my dad met my last girlfriend that he was drunk and tried to get her to make fun of me and manipulate me. Yet here's the rub, we were middle middle class and that's why I say there isn't any root cause other than an internal spiritual disease. You can legislate more assistance to the poor, but I know poor families that don't treat each other that way, but I have known plenty of middle and upper class families with more problems than the poor. Again, you cannot legislate away such fundamental problems, and that's why I get so very, very mad at people who tell me that if alcohol and/or drugs weren't legal, most of these problems would go away. No. They. Wouldn't. It's an internal problem more fundamental than the chemical. My father would have stuck to porn if he didn't have alcohol, and then if necessary to Victoria's Secrets catalogs. The only way to "stop that" is to make society so regulated and bland that virtue has no meaning at all.

The problem that we libertarians have with the conservative "understanding" of community is that we believe it is a myth. Every village, town, city, etc. is nothing more than a geographic grouping of people who live in the same vicinity. At its core, that's all they really are. It takes effort to build a community, and it's not something that exists on its own. My church is a community, but my apartment complex and the ones that surround it do not constitute a community. My town most certainly is not. This is where we part ways. We don't want to restrict individual liberty to protect an arbitrarily drawn geographic region which may have little to no commonality in interests, needs, etc. We do however, believe in collective defense of property, life and liberty. That is... well, the very reason we believe the government should exist.

Personally, I believe that conservatives and left-liberals don't tend to really care about community either. It's part of a greater trend in our society. Libertarianism is built on the idea that you should respect your neighbor and not try to control them unless they're hurting you or your property, and to an extent someone else's life or property. It's a form of respect and is a live-and-let-live mentality that used to be common in this country. I'm actually a left-libertarian rather than a right-libertarian, and so I have no problem with some community building efforts such as providing grants for private education, public colleges and socialized healthcare for veterans, police and fire fighters injured in the line of duty (since most of them earned it IMO). However, overbearing regulations against vice is not going to build or even preserve the health of a town. My town has a sex shop called "Hole in the Wall," the general area is pretty conservative and yet most people never even stop by. Mostly because the average resident just isn't interested, and those that are come and go as they please. It doesn't hurt anyone, and our area isn't worse off for it.

I guess the last major philosophical difference we have with conservatives is that we believe that individuals are the ultimate unit of society. Even a family is defined by its individuals and their interactions. Going back to my father's case, you cannot legislate away his bad behavior, since it wasn't destructive in an empirically demonstrable way without serious reprocusions for families in general. Even now in hindsight, I wouldn't want the government to get involved because the destruction would have been worse. I guess it ultimately boils down to a simple problem. If you cannot empirically demonstrate the damage done by an action, its impact is inherently subjective. A court must deal with facts, not opinions and how can you get fairness and justice when the law cannot measure out the damage done and thus prescribe an appropriate penalty? From my life experiences, I believe it is impossible and I think that having a government that sticks only to objective truths and principles in its laws is the lesser of the two evils since, to paraphrase Madison, we are not ruled by angels, but by fallen me.

9

Thomsen's big similarity between Christianity and Libertarianism seems to be the view that power corrupts, but he fails to see that the bases for the two views differ. Christianity teaches that autonomous man sins against God; Libertarianism merely teaches that autonomous man sins against fellow autonomous man.

Another way to say it is that Christianity teaches that God has the last word, while Libertarians think that if He does, it's only because O'Reilly gave it to Him. ;->

I also blogged about it a few days back.

10

Jim,

That's not relevant. Christians wanting to participate in politics have to create a state that will work on this side of eternity. Libertarianism is a political philosophy and as such is not concerned with crimes of the spirit, but rather of the temporal world. The libertarian state keeps the peace, protects the week from aggression and doesn't try to usurp God's government and judgement over sins against Him. To put it bluntly, the libertarian state would never dream of usurping God's role, but is instead a minimalist state intended to keep the peace and protect the weak, nothing more.

Both hold the view of human nature that ultimately humans will do evil when given the power to do so. For Christians, there is more to it than that, but as I have said, libertarianism is relegated to politics and its view of human nature is thus necessarily a subset since it only covers our nature as it applies to politics. The target of the evil isn't relevant because someone is getting hurt. The state can only prosecute those who hurt others on this side of eternity, and last I checked, paying your due to society won't get you out of God's divine judgement.

11

Our Host writes: I’m rather surprised by the number of Greek Orthodox and Unitarians included.

So can we finally admit that there are no secular humanists in the U.S. Senate?

12

Mike T:

"A state that will work on this side of eternity"..."crimes of the spirit"..."doesn't try to usurp God's government."

Am I correctly reading in these phrases that (1) God's laws would not work on "this side of eternity," (2) Scripture doesn't apply regarding crimes of the flesh, and (3) God should not try to usurp in man's governmental domain?

Why should the Creator of the world be unqualified to speak to its political systems? Scripture distinguishes between sins and crimes, Mike, and not every sin is punishable by law. You seem to be applying the "not of this world" line to the extent of Christ's rule rather than the origin of it.

If Psalm 24:1 is true, that the earth is the Lord's, then there is no neutral domain, no sacred vs. secular distinction, no Lordship stops here sign. Obviously theonomy (God's law, for any scanning readers who might think I meant—shudder—theocracy!) would not work unless the letter were subject to the spirit, i.e., that men who love mercy should mete out judgment.

I understand your view that libertarianism amounts to a subset of Christianity, confining itself to politics. But I think that must be your brand of libertarianism, because Neal Boortz would shoot the lights out of anyone suggesting what you have.

When I listen to well known libertarians such as Boortz and O'Reilly, and read the occasional political tract or interview, I am drawn to believe that the system still depends on human autonomy. You may consider that irrelevant, but I believe "Who's in charge?" is the basic question of the universe.

13

Jim,

The question you don't seem willing to answer is that if God was so willing to assume direct control over gentile civilizations, then why is there no commandment for us to convert our countries to Jewish laws and traditions? BTW, if we do that, kiss your nice trial by jury concept goodbye because the true jury system is a European and not Jewish creation. While you're at it, say goodbye to your freedom of religion, speech, press and any other right which someone could interpret as being used against God. Let's just call it Sharia Light since we'd be a bunch of gentiles badly aping the Jewish traditions.

If you are referring to Bill O'Reilly then I'm not sure I should even be discussing this with you because he is very, very strongly opposed to most libertarian positions and was an ardent opponent of most of the LP's positions in 2004. Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh are more likely to vote Libertarian in 2008 than O'Reilly.

I am able for the most part to live a Christian life without the state telling me to be a Christian. I felt God's call and responded to it. As a Christian, I feel particularly accountable to God and that's why I don't go out and hook up with girls on the weekends, get drunk, steal, get into fights, etc. Yet I have no problem with most of those being legal because only Christians should act like Christians. I'm not about to support a measure to make one of the non-elect behave like one of us, and please don't use the old hack job argument that that means I want to let them run amok. That is the sort of sophistry that we libertarians have come to expect from social conservatives. Either we regulate them from their workplace to their bedroom or they run amok like crazed beasts. They're still accountable to the secular law, and thus per Romans 13 they are still accountable to God. For them to be autonomous, they'd have to be under no obligation to even the secular state.

What we Christian Libertarians do is create two governments: the secular state and the church. The secular state rules believer and non-believer alike using a moral law that is a subset of Christian teachings that keeps the non-believers in line without forcing them to be what they are not. The church's government can then force believers to conform to scripture. I'll accept punishment for any sin from the church, but most of them I would never accept from a secular authority because it is not their legitimate place. Given your focus on autonomy, can I assume you are a calvinist? That's the direction I lean in myself.

Ironically, most calvinists I've ever met actually have strong libertarian political leanings. Comes from the belief in predestination. Making an unbeliever conform to Christ is like trying to ride a dead horse... it's something that no matter how hard to try they're too dead inside to do for you.

14

Something I just read in 1Cor that might interest you Jim:

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside, "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Those were from 6:12-13.

Please understand something about our position, and I apologize if I came off impatient earlier, we do not embrace autonomy from the law. We believe that there is a baseline of morality that all people can live by, that keeps society functional and that leaves room for people of different belief systems to live in peace. America is the only country outside of Israel where Jews have lived side by side with Christians despite deep theological differences because of this.

What I don't get is where could you possibly get the idea that we believe people should ever be autonomous from the law? The rule of law is one of the pillars of our philosophy, unlike most of the ones today left or right. If you believe that God established all governing authorities directly or indirectly as Romans 13 says, then you should realize from this that we do not embrace human autonomy.

God will execute his judgement as He sees fit. The difference is that for most people God chooses to do so only on the other side of eternity. On this side of eternity we Christians are held to the Church's laws which is God's government here on Earth. The secular authority, the ruling authorities that Paul spoke of and the Caesar that Jesus referred to rule everyone regardless of their beliefs and position. As such, it is an institution that is ultimately of man and will one day perish when God becomes the literal King of the Earth. Until then, we must accept the fact that we are the minority, always will be until the 2nd coming and that most of the people in government will always be motivated by non-Christian motivations.

Libertarianism is ultimately an engineering approach to government, it really isn't highly organic at all. We approach the state and its laws the way that an engineer builds a bridge or car. That's why from our perspective the hybrid state you want will fail and be even worse than a lawless state. It'll be a state that enforces an incoherent legal code and that justifies itself as much based on doing the will of God as following the will of the people. We already live in a society with a governing elite with a messiah complex and quite frankly I at least want none of that.

For me the bottom line is simple. Christians will seek holiness, non-Christians will seek peace and stability. Non-Christians enforcing Biblical codes of law will end up creating a horribly judgement and wrathful legal system. Can you honestly tell me that even the average Christian in our country has any desire to help a child molester heal? Imagine then how the average non-Christian feels about them. You can judge a lot about a society and its ability to field a good government by who it calls the most evil. For my money, it is always the cold-blooded murderer by a wide margin. I'm afraid of non-Christians executing Christian laws because chances are they'll have not one iota of the inner grace that the Christian would or at least should have. The only image that comes to my mind is a lesser devil enforcing the Mosaic Law.

15

Mike T:

It is becoming clear that we either read different Bibles, or you are not very familiar with the one we have. (I hate emails when I want to say something like that without it coming across arrogant and conceited.) To wit:

[W]hy is there no commandment for us to convert our countries to Jewish laws and traditions? Jesus' Great Commission in Matthew was "going therefore, disciple ye all the nations" (literal from interlinear translation). Those "Jewish" laws were God's laws, most of them being case laws that needed to be interpreted in principle, IOW, with compassion and mercy (Micah 6:8). Further, the word "disciple" means to thoroughly teach. So our command was to "thoroughly teach" Gentile nations "all that I have commanded you," i.e., all of God's Word. (And please do not retort that He only meant to teach the "red" letters. Jesus was the Word of God made flesh, so clearly He was the embodiment of ALL of God's word.)

BTW, if we do that, kiss your nice trial by jury concept goodbye because the true jury system is a European and not Jewish creation. Western Civilization's concept of the jury system comes from Leviticus 19:15, and European Christian application of it. Where do you think they got the idea? Further, Western Civilization's concept of appeals courts comes directly from Moses' actions after his father-in-law, Jethro, chided him for an overly centralized judicial system. In fact, our Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches were inspired by Old Testament offices of prophet, priest, and king.

While you're at it, say goodbye to your freedom of religion, speech, press and any other right which someone could interpret as being used against God. Let's just call it Sharia Light since we'd be a bunch of gentiles badly aping the Jewish traditions Such a comment infers that Mosaic law is like Islamic law, yet King David called it "sweeter than the honeycomb," and "more desirable than much fine gold."

I am able for the most part to live a Christian life without the state telling me to be a Christian. The implication is that using biblical law in civil code would give us a system where the state tells us what to do. Mike, the whole point of law is that it should be negative, i.e., legislate immorality, not morality. God's laws mostly told people the few things they could NOT do, while only requiring a few things, IOW, He proscribed vice but did not prescribe virtue. As a side note, God's command to Israel was that they let foreigners continue practicing their pagan religions in peace, as long as they didn't violate criminal codes (such as human sacrifice to fire gods).

Can you honestly tell me that even the average Christian in our country has any desire to help a child molester heal? Of course not. The biblical prescription is to execute such criminals. Punishment, not "healing," is the prescription for criminal behavior.

As for your quote from 2Corinthians 5:12,13, the Church has no right to enforce legal code, since God has delegated that duty to the State. Paul was telling the Corinthian believers to stay within their bounds, i.e., to excommunicate (as opposed to execute) people who were living the reprobate lifestyles he had just described. Interestingly, the phrase he quoted from the Old Testament, to "put out" the evildoers, was a phrase that meant to execute. In other words, excommunication by the Church is the ecclesiastical counterpart to execution by the State.

To sum up: Mike, I believe God has ordained the Family, Church, and State as the three primary governmental institutions in the world. They have separate jurisdictions, but all are accountable to God, and all must take their pattern for governing from His word. That makes legislators accountable to God for their interpretation and application of biblical principles. They are never meant to be answerable to the Church, or to clergy. It's the way our founding fathers functioned, yet you claim it's so defective as to be dangerous now.

We obviously could go back and forth for a long time on this, which I don't wish to do. But at least the air is clear and our exchange has been friendly. Now, let's let Joe's servers rest.

Blessings.

16

One of the words mentioned at "Words That Need to Become Less Easy to Use." is "Homophobic".
I myself never use the word "homophobic". The accurate term is "prejudiced". However, whenever I do so, everyone seems to lose their cookies over it. I don't know why. One can be prejudiced, for example, toward baloney sandwiches. It does not necessarily mean the same thing as "bigot". Although with Christian conservatives, especially for example, Dominists, that is often the case.

"Homophobic" actually has it's origins in the legal system. It was coined by attorneys who were representing clients that had assaulted gay or lesbian people. It was part of the "gay panic" defense strategy. By creating a pseudo-scientific sounding name for someone's murderous rage, it was easier to get a jury to buy that the defendant just had the equivalent of a "panic attack" when he committed his crime instead of attempting to bash someone's skull in with a baseball bat. It'd be funny if it didn't work so often.

17

Wow, Jim, Mike, what an articulate and sharply-drawn debate!

My leanings on civil gov't are more libertarian than yours, Jim, but I would not (well, not since I voted in Illinois in 1994, anyway) vote Libertarian because the party line is off on the issues.

I think our relation to the State should largely be a pragmatic one, i.e., how can we avoid its corrupting influence on our churches and homes; and, where we have chances to influence it, how can we help it *not to sponsor or subsidize* injustice or, yes, immorality.

Jim, I think a highlight of the discussion above has to be "legislate immorality." Is this, like, *mandating* sodomy? ;-) I take your meaning, though.

I think I'd stop a step short of this. I prefer a "do no harm" state that restricts itself to the force/fraud justification for intervention in human affairs, leaving the rest up to (from a civil POV) human judgment.

The Christian goal should be for individuals not to think in terms of "me" vs. "what the State compels" but in terms of "what God can do through me" *IN and FOR* "my family, my church, and those outside."

I think Paul's admonition against suing a brother in civil courts indicates a certain distancing of the life of the believer and the church from the civil society.

Cheers,
PGE

18

I think Paul's admonition against suing a brother in civil courts indicates a certain distancing of the life of the believer and the church from the civil society.

I agree. The state's job is primarily a matter of prosecuting civil crimes, not civil disputes. I also draw a distinction between sins and crimes, with the state prosecuting crimes.

Thanks PGE.