Topic: Libertarianism
Libertarianism, Liberty and Christianity Differing opinions within Libertarianism. How can liberty, once realized, be maintained?by Lou Poumakis
(libertarian)
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
It's interesting to see the great divergence of opinion within Libertarianism on this subject. I get comments from some that seem to be Christians and others that are clearly devout atheists. While certainly each is entitled to his own opinion, one is led to wonder as to which group is really entitled to the label Libertarian. Both believe in reducing government and increasing personal liberty and, if we exclude the anarchists, both groups realize that some level of government is a practical necessity. If we were to plot freedom against decreasing government controls, we find that freedom is a maximum before government control reaches zero. Zero government control does not yield much individual freedom. So I would conclude, because at this point they part company with the mainstream, anarchists do not have a valid claim to the title Libertarian.
But what about the non-anarchist non-Christians, how does their claim hold up? To address this question, we need to consider why it is we need government and law and how would-be lawbreakers operate. We need the force of law to restrict those individuals that cannot or will not govern themselves. We are all born selfish creatures and, without either an internal or external restricting force operating to control our actions, we would all, at least some of the time, take whatever we could get from our fellow man to benefit ourselves. This is simply the Christian doctrine of original sin and we can see its truth by merely taking an honest assessment of our own feelings and desires. So, because none of us are totally governed and many are not at all governed from within, civil law becomes a necessity.
Let's assume then that somehow, through great effort, we've arrived at and instituted an ideal or near ideal form of government, a Legislature, Executive and Judiciary, and a set of laws it enforces. There would still exist a criminal element that attempts to circumvent our great and marvelous laws and, while they are mostly caught and prosecuted, they keep getting smarter as time goes on. Our legislators respond by modernizing and improving our laws but the criminals are still there and some of them are very successful (I have in mind people like today's International Bankers). These wealthy and powerful criminals come to realize that by controlling the news and entertainment media, the educational establishment and other centers of power and influence, they can go on to gain control over the law itself. They then modify the law (little by little so no one gets too upset) to elevate themselves at everyone else's expense. All our efforts ultimately go to waste; personal liberty is seriously compromised and we are right back where we started. Yes, this might be a several generations long process but is this the best we can hope for, a cyclic ever-repeating rise and fall sequence?
Where did we go wrong in the above process? I submit it was in assuming that we mortals have the ability to make our own laws and govern ourselves. How can man, a finite, changing and basically sinful creature, expect to govern himself without continually running into these sorts of problems? Here is where Christians and other libertarians begin to part company. The Bible tells us that we cannot govern ourselves and gives us a comprehensive code of law to serve that purpose. Jeremiah 10:23 tells us, "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Psalm 33:12 says, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD." The word LORD here encompasses, among many other things, the idea of the sovereign lawgiver, the one whose word is law. Today's nation states consider themselves to be sovereign powers but God says He is the only sovereign and therefore, the only legitimate lawgiver. Interestingly, neither the US Constitution nor any of the original State constitutions used the word sovereign in expressing their powers. The legislative function was considered to be ministerial in nature. They were to take God's laws from the Bible and cast them into appropriate form as the law of the land. Also, as to the judiciary function, God's law was considered the "Higher Law." It was very common, well into the 19th century, for judges to read a passage of Scripture related to the offence before pronouncing sentence on a convicted criminal. They thereby were communicating that God's law was the basis for the sentence they pronounced. This is, although little noted, an important aspect of our American heritage. We were a nation that to a great degree recognized God as the LORD. The blessings we still enjoy today derive from that source. In the later 19th and the 20th centuries we went off-track; we permitted God's sovereignty to be eroded and allowed our legislators the right to make laws not based on Scripture. To retain a true and lasting freedom, we must be vigilant to keep sovereignty in heaven and deny it to any earthly agency. This is something only Christians can do and why they represent the purest form of Libertarianism.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Lou Poumakis only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Lou Poumakis 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.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-30 15:12:04
"We are all born selfish creatures and, without either an internal or external restricting force operating to control our actions, we would all, at least some of the time, take whatever we could get from our fellow man to benefit ourselves."
This is a pretty dismal and petty view of human character. I personally don't believe this to be true. I think there is some sort of bell curve of goodness to badness in humans. The longer we evolve through rationality and reason, the more the bell curve shifts toward goodness.
"The Bible tells us that we cannot govern ourselves..."
It also tells us to punish those who work on the Sabbath and who are homosexual and who are rambunctious teen agers by killing them. Why should we pay attention to such a vile and evil book?
"They thereby were communicating that God's law was the basis for the sentence they pronounced. This is, although little noted, an important aspect of our American heritage. We were a nation that to a great degree recognized God as the LORD. "
Ummmm, the founding of law's in this country were explicitly secular. "Congress shall make no law..." meant exactly that.
The fact that some areas of America were backwooded swamp and mosquito infested bible thumping communities in no way changes the nature of the Constitution and the intent of the original founders, who KNEW that religiousity as a basis for law was atavistic and crazy. What amazes me even more is that there are still enclaves of pure stupidity in America, communities who worship supremely odd and silly notions IN SPITE of the fact that we are in the 21st century and are busy splitting atoms and chronicling the history of our species via DNA as it truly WAS, evolving from the swamps of a 4.5 BILLON year old earth...
"The blessings we still enjoy today derive from that source. In the later 19th and the 20th centuries we went off-track; we permitted God's sovereignty to be eroded and allowed our legislators the right to make laws not based on Scripture. To retain a true and lasting freedom, we must be vigilant to keep sovereignty in heaven and deny it to any earthly agency. This is something only Christians can do and why they represent the purest form of Libertarianism."
Ummm, no, silly. The fruits of our existence have all come from science. Our longer life spans. Our healthier living conditions. Our comforts. Our silly amusements. Our knowledge of how things work. Our ability to free women of the mandatory sentence of child-birthing. Our ability to cure diseases that once ravaged us. Our ability to see the far reaches of our galaxy. Our knowledge of what our planet is made of. All from science.
Meanwhile, some of us have this horribly afflicted notion that they want to obey the dictates of a book that proscribes genocide, infanticide, rape, incest, and all sorts of other vile things and they want the rest of us to be just as brainwashed.
My apologies if this is a double post. The previous entry gave an error, so I can't tell if it will go through and be posted or not.
Briefly, I see several problems with your article, or at least I don't see that you've considered some obvious objections to it.
Firstly, I can't determine if you believe biblical law to be libertarian, or if you consider libertarian law to be untenable, and therefore biblical law is the true ideal. If it's the first, how do you define libertarian, and how does that definition match the commands to put adulterers, homosexuals, witches, and blasphemers to death? If it's the second, why do you use the label libertarian for yourself?
Or is there a third option?
Secondly, are you suggesting that slavery in the United States was properly based on the Bible, and that the abolitionists were acting contrary to God's will? Are you also suggesting that all laws passed before the 1860s (based on your comments about the late 19th century) were based on the Bible? That seems to be your claim, but just making sure I read that correctly.
On your comments regarding anarchists within libertarianism, I should point out that anarchists do not support chaos and anarchy in the normal sense of those words. They simply see the use of coercion outside of self-defense (or the defense of others) to be immoral for anyone at all times, and therefore the traditional idea of a State which has the prerogative to use violence against others outside of self-defense is not something they can morally sanction.
Posted By: Lloyd Kempson (atheist and former christian)
Date: 2008-04-30 15:24:42
"This is something only Christians can do and why they represent the purest form of Libertarianism."
Then please tell all of the Mega Churches to stop using the Bible as a means to change our laws to thier favor. We do not need a law prohibiting the wearing of clothes that are made with two different fabrics (old testament law that is somehow ignored).
We do not need laws against sexuality. We definitly do not need laws that tell us that we can not sell alcohol, gamble, or porn on a Sunday.
God, if he exists, is an Authoritarian Statist who will send you to prison for thought crime. Religion is the greatest hinderance of freedom. Our religious freedom in this country came from men who did not believe in the superiority of one religion over another. They were deists. Jefferson did not believe in the diety or supernatural power of Christ, and he also edited his own Bible. Jefferson also owned a copy of the Koran.
America is not a Christian nation, rather a free nation that allows you to worship anything that you want to believe. Christianity has evolved over the years in the United States due to social pressures. We have more denominations of Christianity today than ever before. We have not gotten off track, because we were never on track to begin with.
Our growingly secular nation is one that will lead to technological advancement, scientific discovery, and a rational society. The Bible will only lead us away from such things.
Please put the Bible down! As a Christian I find myself offended when people try to promote America as a Christian country. If that were the case there would be NO seperation of church and state. Can we not rewrite history and take a good look at the truth. Freedom made the country great! The Fathers missed one detail that could have been the difference for us, they should have established a public trust to fund elections and an amendment that guaranteed aquittal for those who shot tax collectors as an act of self defense.
"We are all born selfish creatures and, without either an internal or external restricting force operating to control our actions, we would all, at least some of the time, take whatever we could get from our fellow man to benefit ourselves."
does this mean im God? YAAY ME!!!
ive never read your goofy book, so i dont know what "laws" you think im supposed to be following, but there are some pretty obvious things that you should and should not do- most of which i have known since i can remember- and believe it or not, a lot of it has to do with leaving people alone, and minding your own damn business unless they ask you something, or start harassing you.
in those cases, you can answer/assist -or not, and retaliate/leave -or not. it doesnt mean you can go telling people how to conduct their lives just because you think it looks funny, or is dirty, or whatever.
dont go feeding me this organized religion bullshit when the only use for it is peeling money out of gullible "i wanna be holy,too!" tag-alongs' pockets.
you dont need a religion to understand how a good person should act.
It's true that we need some form of government, but I think it's important to consider just how broad of a spectrum "government" can cover and what forms of governance are legitimate and illegitimate. I remember years ago asking, "What's the difference between a religion and a cult?" The answer I got was, "The difference has to do with the degree of difficulty involved in leaving." Legitimacy, in this case, and government, has to do with the ability to opt out - voluntary Vs. coerced participation.
Size matters. If we categorize government based on size, we also find a relationship between size and the degree of difficulty involved in secession. The smallest form of government is self government. Each of us, for better or worse governs his own actions. Moving up the scale you could include family government. That's the "If you're going to live in my house, you're going to live by my rules" government. There's church government and work government. "I will pay you to be here but you must wear a clean blue shirt and be on time."
Every form of association requires a little give and take of rights and privilege.
Continue up the government scale a little farther and you begin to run into the more and more coercive forms of government which I like group together as "The State." It becomes easy to see that size matters. Municipalities are easy to walk away from. You can move out to the country where you'll be under the County's thumb instead. The problem we've run into today, is that there's nowhere you can go to completely escape "The State." It's a malignant tumor which unfortunately, we've cultivated ourselves through our desire to gain the greastest amount of personal benefit at the least cost of personal effort and responsibility.
I have friends who have expatriated. They have found that what they get is not really less "State," only different "State." That's the difficulty with the "America, love it or leave it" mentality. It's not America we don't love, it's "The State" and you can't just leave it. It's everywhere. I know it's a logical conclusion, but obviously if government gets more coercive as it increases in size, then world government is going to be the absolute worst.
Why do many self-professed Christians forget their master's voice when he is reported to have said there is one primary law that precedes all other laws and all other prophets?
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them for this is the law and the prophets." Jesus’ summary of the sermon on the mount Matthew 7:12 circa 30 AD
“Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two hang all the law and the prophets.” Matthew 22:36-40
As an antitheist I make every effort to obey this second Golden Rule, to leave others to pursue happiness in their own ways, and to be left alone to pursue mine. This also agrees with Kant's Categorical Imperative; the perfect right of each creature to be left alone unless touched by mutual consent.
This secular law of conduct is in our genes, it allows peaceful evolution; it is far older than the "New Testament."
People are free to believe in angels or fairies, etc., or not, but violations of this Golden Rule always result in blowback, always.
All beliefs are ephemeral opinions that by definition cannot be proven. Irrational beliefs are not required in order to obey the ancient Golden Rule of human conduct; only common sense. (Cf. "The Mind of the Market," M. Shermer (2008)).
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.
