As the Creator, and as the most Holy God, only He is always good. by Mark Vogl
(conservative)
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
This may be the first in a series of essays offering only my view about the role and purpose of liberty. I had previously written an article titled " Where Libterty Calls " which inspired a libertarian to author "Christianity as Statism." This essay is part of response to that.
The central point of my initial article was that liberty is only good if it is used for good. The response was " ... liberty is always a good idea, regardless of how people behave individually."
Libertarians may believe that, but not too many other people do. And there are barely more libertarians than homosexuals so we are talking maybe 3 percent of the American population. ( In New York where is there is a Libertarian line, it routinely pulls about 2% of the vote, less than half of the consercvative line, and less than the Right to Life line.)
Liberty is a condition. It is a condition where man is given free choice. He earned that condition in the Garden of Eden when he fell to the temptations of sin. In man's first rejection of a simple rule, placed on him by His Creator, man decided he knew better than God. The result, tens of thousands of years of sin, war, disease, pain, etc.
Man rejected perfection and almost complete freedom, insisting that he knew better. Now, his progeny suffers. The torrent of chaos which man unleashed because of his arrogant belief that liberty was always good...surrounds us to this day.
But, if we did consider history and God, and what could have been, and merely look at near history, or individual history...and ofthe essence of what the author says is liberty "good is anything that people choose to do that doesn't directly harm another ,,,:" we can see once again the great myth of liberty.
Who, in their ulitimate wisdom is the source of inherent goodness of liberty? Which person or persons is the author of this perfect ideology? Will leave that question for another day.
"....doesn't directly harm another ... " How do we define that? If somene kills themself and they have children, would that suffice ...does that act harm another? So is suicide wrong for a parernt, but ok for a homeless, unconnceted orphan, who has no one?
And drugs? If nothing else these evil properties waste time and resources,...not to mention the physical affects on the users, and the potential for harmful actions to others. So how are drugs defended?
But maybe the two greatest fallacies of libertarianism is: a complete rejection of God, and a failure to set higher a standard for human life. This higher standard is not about "not hurting others" but about developing the gifts given by God and preparaing for the next life.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl 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: Walt
Date: December 22, 2010 10:49:01 AM
I want to thank Mr. Vogl for proving the truths contained in my article by the examples provided in his article, even though he proved them unintentionally. Let's look at some of them:
Vogl wrote: "The central point of my initial article was that liberty is only good if it is used for good. The response was ' ... liberty is always a good idea, regardless of how people behave individually.' Libertarians may believe that, but not too many other people do. And there are barely more libertarians than homosexuals so we are talking maybe 3 percent of the American population."
First, libertarians are about 10-20% of the population, according to most polls that have asked that question. Even so, we can put the percentages aside, because they really don't matter. Here's how we know. Let's assume his estimate of population percentages were true; how would such percentages invalidate my claim that liberty is always good? Answer: they wouldn't. Truth remains truth no matter what percentage of the population believes it. In short, Vogl doesn't actually address the heart of the question. He merely rejects it based on what he (falsely) perceives to be its level of popularity. Thus, his argument fails.
He goes on to argue that liberty comes from a biblical fairy tale...the Garden of Eden. The arrogance of that argument is obvious to anyone but a Christian zealot. As the famous philosopher of liberty, John Locke, said, "Religion, which should most distinguish us from the beasts, and ought most particularly elevate us, as rational creatures, above brutes, is that wherein men often appear most irrational, and more senseless than beasts." On the topic of liberty, Locke wrote, "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."
In other words, our rights exist in nature and come from nature, not from the Garden of Eden. One does not have to be a Christian, or believe in Christian myths, in order to know liberty and its origins.
Most of the rest of his article consists of unfounded, vague claims about drugs, as if drug use were the basis of liberty.
He concludes with the ultimate statement of arrogance: "But maybe the two greatest fallacies of libertarianism is: a complete rejection of God, and a failure to set higher a standard for human life. This higher standard is not about 'not hurting others' but about developing the gifts given by God and preparing for the next life."
In other words, unless we agree with him about God and our individual purpose here on earth, we reject God completely and fail to set a higher standard for human life. In truth, the opposite holds. My belief in God is quite secure, thank you very much, and depends not at all on Mr. Vogl's twisted ideas. The fact that he thinks I reject God because I disagree with him only proves that it's he who has rejected God as God really is, preferring instead to mold his understanding of God into his own theology. It's not a surprise, therefore, that he don't understand liberty, either, and in fact that he refuses to understand it on its own merits outside of his theology. In his view, liberty only exists where it agrees with his theology, because in his arrogance he believes that his theology's precepts are the only valid ones that humans have for understanding liberty.
