Topic: Libertarianism
Christian Libertarianism Makes Sense for Ron Paul And for Me Are Libertarianism and Christianity fundamentally incompatible? Ron Paul is a Christian politician with distinctly libertarian views. He does not "push" his Christianity on others. Neither do I.by creator
(libertarian)
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Scott calls himself an "anti-religionist" and groups himself with atheists, rationalists, and agnostics. I consider myself both "Christian" and "libertarian" and so I am squarely on "the other side" of his equation. However I don't think we are nearly as far apart as Scott may think we are, and I hope that if he reads this article he will agree.
Rarely am I faced with the delightful prospect of a "straight man" willing to present a wonderful set of leading questions as Scott has done in his fine article! I'll state for the record: I did not put him up to it! :) But responding to the questions Scott has raised is a temptation that I cannot resist, especially because I admire Scott's creative approach to writing and we share the common cause of liberty and support for for Ron Paul!
My original strategy was to respond to Scott point-by-point, question by question... but instead, while other points may be incidentally covered in the process, I will primarily address what I perceive to be Scott's core question:
"I want to know how Libertarian Christians reconcile their belief in "liberty" with their belief in a divine dictator?"
Scott, my sense from your article is that this truly puzzles you! The way you have phrased your question suggests to me that you may have some underlying misconceptions about Christians. Fair enough! And so, in order to try and get to the core of your question, I will begin with a metaphor from engineering.
In my world-view, the very concept of Liberty has its source in God. "Liberty" as a raw and untamed concept can be dangerous! Drawing on my background in engineering, I would observe that "liberty" and "constraint" are two opposite but essentially related sides of the same coin. When I begin a design, I consider the purpose of the artifact I wish to devise, and then work within constraints to create the very best and most effective solution to my design problems.
Let me pose the example of a roller coaster at Magic Mountain (roller coasters are another of my passions!) Are you, as a roller coaster rider, desirous of complete liberty in your coasters? I for one am very glad to ride only roller coasters that are completely free to move smoothly and rapidly, but solely within the constraints of their track. I don't want to reach the top of a corkscrew loop only to have the train exercise the "liberty" of departing the track and plunging me to destruction!
Even more than roller coasters, I am passionate about surfing. When I ride a wave, it is like being on an utterly smooth roller coaster that is continuously changing its shape, plus I get to steer! However, even in that much freer context, I am constrained to work with the wave - it is bigger and more powerful than I, and there is absolutely no point or benefit in resisting it.
You have asked "How can submission and liberty coexist in the same brain?" without realizing that they already do in yours. Real "liberty" and authentic "freedom," always and of necessity imply constraints. Scott, in another context you have already acknowledged as much (see Scott's comments and my reply here) - You disdain "anarchy" and I think rightly so. You confess that you submit to laws. And so, Scott, I don't think you and I are that far apart in terms of understanding that Liberty is always constrained. We perhaps differ primarily (if at all) in what the best source and definition of those submission-worthy constraints ought to be.
Now to try and answer your core question: If you insist on seeing God as "Divine Dictator" I will reply "Benevolent Divine Dictator." But, to illuminate my personal perception and why I see no contradiction whatsoever with liberty, I view God as my "Loving Father." Yes, God places constraints on my behavior, but I believe -- with a conviction that has grown throughout the course of a lifetime of experience and study -- that His constraints are authentically and intentionally for my benefit and for the good of all.
As a young man, this was possible for me to grasp only "theoretically." Now, as a father and even more so as a grandfather, I love my children and grandchildren with a passion I would never have thought possible. When I offer them choices and accompanying constraints - "Jenny, don't ride your bike in the street!" - it is entirely motivated by a desire for their benefit. One major reason why I am in this "fight for liberty" is for the sake of my beloved offspring. And so, Scott, here is the core answer to your question:
"Maximized Liberty" for me exists in cheerful voluntary submission to the Omnipotent and Omniscient God Who is my loving Father, Who, undoubted by me, has my absolute best interest at heart. Within His minimal constraints I find almost infinite freedom.
I think that if you, even if only temporarily and for the sake of understanding my perspective, stipulate that these conditions -- as I perceive them -- apply for me, you will have the answer to your question.
Does this give me the "liberty" to impose all the constraints that I voluntarily abide by on you, Scott? No! And I will state plainly, here and now, that so-called "Christians" who seek to use the force of government to impose their personally acknowledged constraints on others are acting in opposition to everything I know about the teaching of scripture.
Dr. Ron Paul very obviously is not of that limited school of thinking, as is very clearly indicated by all of his platform positions -- from ending the "war on drugs" to restraining every form of federal over-reaching.
Do I support you in what you have called "the new push-back movement of the non-religious?" Yes! I am all about Truth, and from what I have read of your writing, I believe you are as well. If you look back over my columns, you will find that I often take "Christians" to task for "irrational and contradictory positions." So in many ways, we are "on the same page." However, I relish the opportunity to try to communicate some of my personal hope to you:
I believe that "Christian Liberty" is ultimately the highest form of liberty that exists. It offers men liberty from compulsive and self-destructive behavior. It also offers the paramount liberty that all men most desire, the freedom from and final answer to their lifelong fear of death. Jesus Christ offers that liberty, also known as "eternal life," to any willing turn to Him. This is what I teach my children, and what I share with any who will listen.
Here's the bottom line: I think, Scott, that you've been sold and have bought into a "bill of goods" about what Christianity actually is - and that you've misapprehended it. As a Christian, I believe that even allowing for the voluntarily accepted constraints of my beliefs, I have utterly "maxed out" my available liberty, and that it will only get better for me, by the grace of God, from here on out. It's like the freedom of surfing - while there are recognized constraints, they are not onerous and the result is sheer exhilaration! There should be nothing mysterious about that motivation!
And so, I hope I've answered your question and more importantly satisfied your puzzled curiosity, and that you now better understand how at least one "Christian libertarian" reconciles concepts that are only superficially and apparently conflicting.
On a final note I will answer, by example, one other question you raised:
"When I hear a Libertarian state that 'We are granted rights as individuals by our creator,' I am dumbfounded by the implication."
Creator-granted rights are generally granted in the form of constraints. You are probably familiar with "The Big Ten," and by way of example I will mention one that we no doubt actually agree on: "Thou shalt not murder." This constraint, whether you view it as God's pronouncement, or whether you derive it in some other way, is what grants us the "Right to Life." I find this kind of grant of rights and freedom throughout my personal study of the bible. Jesus simplified and summarized it in a word: Love -- which columnist Jim Hines and I have previously discussed (see Jesus and Ron Paul.)
OK, one final comment - written after I looked back at your original article and was "blown away" by the volume of comments. Believe it or not, I began writing this before any comments had appeared there, because I judged your article worthy of a "more formal" response. The issue you have complained of being dodged is this: "eternal punishment." Consider for a moment the grandchild analogy. Am I to be despised for warning my granddaughter of the natural consequence of playing in the street, or of jumping off of a cliff? Consider the possibility that when God says "The person who sins will die," He is warning you of a natural consequence of your actions.
Scott, thanks for being my "straight man" today. :) I look forward to reading more of your writing.
The views expressed in this
article are those of creator only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. creator is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Wow!!! Wow!!! Thank you so much for writing this article! Reading it, I thought for a moment that perhaps I had written it! You have poured out MY heart on this webpage.
I often am asked to reconcile my libertarianism and my christianity... and it is so fun to share with others that it is only in Christ that we are TRULY free!!! HE is the Author of Liberty! I confess that while Ron Paul is my man, I cringe at his
Wow!!! Wow!!! Thank you so much for writing this article! Reading it, I thought for a moment that perhaps I had written it! You have poured out MY heart on this webpage.
I often am asked to reconcile my libertarianism and my christianity... and it is so fun to share with others that it is only in Christ that we are TRULY free!!! HE is the Author of Liberty! I confess that while Ron Paul is my man, I cringe at his "hope for America" slogan, because I know that Christ, alone, is our Hope.
Wonderful comments. I am reminded also of Murray Rothbards assertion that libertarianism is a political philosophy. It merely deals with mans relation to man. It is not an all encompassing philosophy that seeks to explain all of the universe and mans place in it. When a Christian says we are free, he means we are free from other men, not from God. God constrains man in many ways not the least of which is the natural world in which we live. Unless some very radical technologies are developed it would appear that man is marooned on Earth and within our own solar system for example, the distances in space are so vast. That is a constraint, our lifespans are a constraint, the lack of super abundance of goods is a constraint. These are all part of the natural order, and come from God. The Bible affirms our right in reverse, they come as orders of restraint. "Thou shalt not steal" is an affirmation of the right to property, "Thou Shalt not Murder" is an affirmation of our right to our life and bodies, "Thou Shalt not commit Adultery" is an affirmation of our right not to be defrauded, and for our contracts to be upheld, in all things as well as marriage. It is not accident that Liberty came out of the Christian West, and the further that we move from our Christian roots the further we have moved away from Liberty.
Posted By: Christine Smith
Date: 2008-03-04 17:25:24
I appreciated reading both Scott's and Dann's (creator) essays today...and share this:
A quote from Frederic Bastiat, The Law:
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society; may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works."
I love Bastiat's basis of libertarianism and spirituality - for me the two are one.
The spiritual or religious beliefs of an individual, of a libertarian, are personal...and if said individual does not seek to use the government to impose said beliefs upon others...then there is nothing at all inconsistent. It is a personal choice, and one which an individual must be true to themselves and their heart.
Although I am not a Christian (I was for 13 years-but no longer; though I do believe in the love Jesus taught, and my spirituality and beliefs/ethics/morals are important to me), I, too, find some libertarians who think a libertarian must only be an atheist for example. I disagree. Our beliefs, how we choose to live and why, are personal and in no way contradict libertarianism. Putting rationality and logic (both of which I value highly) on a pedestal, and choosing to subsequently condemn others who also have a belief system, is in itself irrational and illogical.
To believe in a higher power, in God, in the Holy Spirit...to explore spiritual beliefs and religious traditions...to seek understanding...to admit "I don't know," are all personal choices...in no way in conflict with libertarianism. It is the same as choosing to love another which means giving of oneself to another and making their happiness paramount with your own - that is not giving up freedom - it is joyfully sharing...it is often the state we learn much more of ourselves...and it can celebrate liberty. If we are blessed to experience this with another individual, why would one question an individual who believes they have found unity with [our] Creator or God or Spirit? Whom one finds a personal relationship and communion with is personal. What one wishes to voluntary "give up" for sake of that relationship or belief is also personal.
Scott asserted, "...the trouble comes not because I care what others believe, but because their beliefs have deleterious effects on how I am able to live my life." I've often felt that way as well and completely understand that sentiment...but never have I felt that way about the Christians whom I've met who are also libertarians. In fact, the Christians who are also libertarians I've met have, for the first time in my life, taught me that some individuals do have the fortitude and strength of character to possess a belief right for themselves, their life and worship - but who are able to draw the line in that they unlike (some other Christians) do not want to impose their will upon others. They have been willing to discuss issues with me rationally and engage in good conversation regarding our spiritual beliefs as well - in fact, it is Christian libertarians who have had some of the most profound effect upon me recently - because of their integrity, character, and their principled libertarianism.
Scott and Dann - thanks for the though-provoking articles today! Again, this is what makes Nolan Chart so valuable an exchange of ideas.
Creator, Scott is on record in his comments in rejecting objective morality. So, he may or may not accept your proposition that murder is wrong. (Situational ethics) His self reasoning will be valid regardless of the conclusion he draws. And, his conclusion will be true whether he determines murder to be wrong or right. In the absence of a Creator's objective standard Scott alone will be the standard for morality.
His reply mirrors that of the argument presented in Romans. Who can resist His will? Therefore, why does He find fault? Paul's answer, Who are thou on man that repliest against God? The argument advanced by Scott has been around a long time.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-04 18:50:18
"And, his conclusion will be true whether he determines murder to be wrong or right. In the absence of a Creator's objective standard Scott alone will be the standard for morality."
Ummmm.... actually no. Moral standards actually come from consensus among groups of people. An individual's moral standard will eventually be modified and codified and shaped by the group in which he/she resides.
Murder was considered immoral by large groups of people far before the advent of the ten commandments. There was no need for this declaration of divine morality, the idea was already extant and had been for a long time. Otherwise, societies would have perished instead of thrived.
Plainly morality existed outside of the bible and thrived IN SPITE OF the bible, not because of it.
Scott, whether it is you or a group you are setting the standards for morality. There are tribes that still practice cannibalism and murder is a part of it. And, these societies have thrived. So, by your consensus standard murder is moral in that society. Murder has indeed been sinful before the ten commadments. Cain killed Abel very early on and before he did the Lord warned him that sin was couching at the door.
The Bible is a record of what went before. The fact that murder was wrong was relayed from God to man from the beginning.
Your suggestion that morality thrived in spite of the Bible implies that the Bible is inherently immoral. Perhaps you can explain how.
Your comments have the ring of authority, but I don't see the references.
Hi Scott! Glad you've commented, and I see some rather significant subtleties of our differences coming to light here. So, in your view moral standards are democratically based? I find that disturbing because that fully justifies, for example, the theft cheerfully imposed by the democratic masses in the form of income taxation. Or, another example, the human sacrifices of Caananites and Mayan indians. Or have I misunderstood your meaning?
And if I've got this right, then DX10's protestations are valid at least in the sense that even if it is not you personally determining your morality, it is a morality on a "sliding scale" and without absolutes. I can state fairly confidently that this is pretty far afield from the beliefs of America's founders. And so, just to be specific and clear, is murder an absolute in your world-view, or merely a matter of group consensus, subject to exceptions? And if the latter, who gets to decide the exceptions?
And so, Scott, I don't think you and I are that far apart in terms of understanding that Liberty is always constrained. We perhaps differ primarily (if at all) in what the best source and definition of those submission-worthy constraints ought to be.
Creator, you and Scott are actually not at all close together. His response above regarding murder demontrates that his worldview is diametrically opposed to yours. God can never be the source and definition of anything for him. God does not exist for him. The most fundamental tenet of his faith is that God does not exist. He is, without doubt, ready to deny logic and reason before he would ever even begin to consider the possibility of the actual existence of the God of the Bible. Christ told us that unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. The reality of the spiritual realm is invisible to the spiritually dead individual. He said "my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" Those that are not His sheep do not hear and do not follow.
Until this difference in worldviews is resolved, one way or the other, any argument or discussion about liberty or justice is destined to be a fruitless waste of effort. You will each just reiterate what seems to you to be the essence of logic and reason and never arrive at any sort of agreement. You see, if there is no God, all your arguments fall to the ground and are, from Scott's point of view, utterly foolish and totally unreasonable.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-04 19:55:05
"There are tribes that still practice cannibalism and murder is a part of it. And, these societies have thrived."
ummmm no. Name me one "thriving" cannabalistic society. Not one merely extant, but "thriving".
"So, by your consensus standard murder is moral in that society" Ummmm... yes. Just as in America, murder is moral if authorized by a president and justified by some odd psuedo-christan morality...I am amazed at the size and scope of Christians willing to drop "smart bombs" on people of another culture.
"Your suggestion that morality thrived in spite of the Bible implies that the Bible is inherently immoral." Ummmmm.... no. It iimplies that the bible is wholly unnecessary and redundant, which it is, especially if you grew up in an Asian culture, for example.
"Your comments have the ring of authority, but I don't see the references. " How OLD do you think Chinese culture is? Japanese? When were the ten commandments supposedly delivered?
"So, in your view moral standards are democratically based?" Ummmm no.... they are culturally based. For example, slavery mutated to non slavery which mutated to a form of enlightened shared humanity. This was a shift that took place in the mind's of humankind, OUTSIDE of the moral teachings of any book. It was a gradual moral shift which took much time and effort to attain and maintain.
Slavery was found to be immoral independant of any said book of ancient morality and eventually, so was prejudice and bigotry.
Remember, the founders kept slaves. Lincoln was not morally concerned with those who owned slaves...
which leaves me to your final statement of sliding scale morality.... Absolutely. Which is why I keep coming back to the statement that morality exists and improves IN SPITE OF religion.
Religion keeps one mired in ancient morality, which, beyond the obvious few "commandments" that also make sense to a Buddhist for example, are not very morally high on that sliding scale of yours...
I am amazed at the size and scope of Christians willing to drop "smart bombs" on people of another culture.
Perhaps their number is large. But as I said in the other article's blog, you make the mistake of associating me with them. I am not one of them and neither are many Christians. I am not afraid to decry this behavior and viewpoint as unChristian.
I would not expect you to appreciate me associating your secular humanist ideas with big government liberalism. It's the same idea. Just because people who think like you happen to have a huge stripe cheering for Obama, that doesn't make you one of them. I realize that. Please return the favor.
It iimplies that the bible is wholly unnecessary and redundant, which it is, especially if you grew up in an Asian culture, for example.
That's not what you said. You said "in spite of the bible". This means that in your scenario the bible is present and morality flourished despite - in spite of - the influence of the bible. That definitely implies that the bible is immoral.
We can argue the morality of asian cultures separately, but I'd start by saying that within our lifetimes, what we're doing right now - engaging in intellectual debate - would mark you for death in several asian countries. I'm going to say that's not moral. You can blame God for making me think this way if you want.
...your final statement of sliding scale morality.... Absolutely. Which is why I keep coming back to the statement that morality exists and improves IN SPITE OF religion.
So now take the time to address the issues "religion" is bringing up which are today considered moral by society.
Why was it once not moral to kill an unborn child, or euthanize the elderly, but now it is?
Why was it once not moral to abandon your spouse, but now it is?
The scale slides both ways. Right now that scale is also sliding toward the complete elimination of the idea of natural rights, and toward absolute statism. I somehow doubt you'd say that this is a good thing.
Part of what the Christianity is about is consistency. Of course, it's not going to be apparent to you or even to most people professing to be Christians. The consistency is there despite how much we've managed to botch the religion.
I don't mean to speak for the creator (of NolanChart or the Universe), but it seems to me that you might have misunderstood his "sliding scale" comment. If I understand him right, perhaps a "slippery slope" would be a more poignant metaphor. This is not a positive thing, as you seemed to imply in your response. This is the concept of society sinking in the quagmire of moral relativity. Do you mean to say we should celebrate this? Morality has not been righteously upheld over the last 4,000 years, it has only declined. Whether you believe that our founding fathers were hyper-libertarian agnostics or right-wing religious nut-jobs you cannot tell me that the moral climate in our country at the time of its establishment was like that of pre-fall Roman Empire. I wish I could say the same of us today.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-03-06 00:16:54
"Morality has not been righteously upheld over the last 4,000 years, it has only declined. Whether you believe that our founding fathers were hyper-libertarian agnostics or right-wing religious nut-jobs you cannot tell me that the moral climate in our country at the time of its establishment was like that of pre-fall Roman Empire. I wish I could say the same of us today. "
I am not sure what type of morality meter you use, but at the time of the first testament, ummm.... children were traded for livestock, human sacrifices were common, slavery was a fact of life, people were killed by having stones thrown at them for what today would be considered human frailty offenses. Humans were killed en masse for believing in a different diety, and so on and so forth...
I don't know about you, but none of these things are considered "moral" to a sane and modern mind and yet you think we have devolved? Odd...
The book of the day described a god who killed whole villages for vengeance sake (an odd "morality tale" if one thought about it), goats were killed to scapegoat the offenses of humans...
During the penning of the Constitution you had religious sects at war with each other right here in America. The indigenous population was sometimes slaughtered, the women raped, the children butchered...
And you find this more moral than a modern mind?
There were slaves kept by the penners of the Declaration, and you want to claim it was a far more moral time? Many of these female slaves ended up with yellow babies by married men and you want to tell me we have slipped since then?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
