10 Reasons I Am A Libertarian Christian
1. The Biblical maxim to “love your neighbor” and the Libertarian principle of non-aggression[1] are essentially synonymous.
2. With the exception of defensive wars in the case of attack, war is an evil that plagues humanity; Christians are to be peacemakers[2] and together with Libertarians should oppose national aggression.
3. The War on Drugs is a catalyst for gangs, drive-bys, murder, and smuggling. Like the Prohibition on Alcohol before it, it has drastically increased crimes that would otherwise not be committed. Drunkenness/Intoxication is a personal sin[3] dealt with by God NOT the government and this should be true not only in Biblical times, but in our times.
4. Immigration restrictions are an attempt by the government to intervene in the marketplace by limiting the number of workers competing for jobs. It is a restriction on my rights as a property owner and employer to hire whomever I should choose. We should follow the Biblical mandate to welcome the stranger in the land.[4]
5. The Poor will always be among us [5], and stealing from one group of people to provide for another (taxation and welfare) is still stealing. Charitable organizations and Churches that receive their funds voluntarily should willingly feed the hungry and care for the poor [6], but the Government has no business involving itself in such tasks.
6. Taxes are theft by the government and forced redistribution of wealth. Sometimes to the poor, further enslaving them, but usually to the wealthy in the form of bailouts and “loans”. The government should be reduced so that a person can enjoy the fruits of his or her labor [7].
7. My property is mine, and I have the right to privacy in my personal effects. Just as I have no right, Biblical or otherwise, to enter your property and rummage through it, I have no right to delegate that authority to the government. The government should immediately cease and desist actions based on the PATRIOT Act and any form of spying conducted against its citizens.
8. Healthcare is not a right, it is a good. The government was not instituted to provide goods and services but to protect our rights. I have the right to pursue the acquisition of goods (like healthcare), what the Founding Fathers called the right to pursue happiness [8], but I do not have the right to receive healthcare at another’s expense. The government should stay out of the healthcare business.
9. The environment is polluted more by companies that have been granted the “privilege” to pollute by the government than any other. This so-called privilege to pollute allows companies to pollute to a certain level without fear of reprisal from their neighbors. This is an attack on the property rights of those who have the misfortune of living near a polluter, drinking water affected by the polluter, or breathing air that has been affected by the polluter. Restoring one’s property rights and allowing him to prevent his property from being polluted and to seek damages for it is the fastest way to protect the environment. The government, far from being a helper to the environmentalists, is their biggest enemy.
10. I believe that a person has the right to protect himself, his family, and his property from any enemy that may threaten him – whether that enemy be a thief, murderer, rapist, or tyrannical government [9]. The State then has no right to infringe upon a person’s ability to protect himself, even against the State [10]. It is a person’s God-given right to protect himself, his family, and his property.
_________________________________________
[1] Leviticus 19:18
and the Non-Aggression Axiom: No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation.
[2] Matthew 5:9
[3] Proverbs 23:20-21 — describes the effects of drunkenness as the results of the drunkard’s decisions in life and as God deals with him, not as the punishment of government.
[5] Matthew 26:11
[7] Psalm 128:2
[8] Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson — We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
[9] Nehemiah 4:13-14
[10] U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Second Amendment — A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Filed under: Culture, Politics, Worldview19 Comments »
« The Role of the Church in Politics | Home | What is Meant by a Right? »
November 19th, 2009 at 5:20 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Matt Bianco, Matt Bianco. Matt Bianco said: My newest blog post: 10 Reasons I Am A Libertarian Christian http://cli.gs/Qezhd [...]
November 19th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Excellent Matt, excellent!
November 21st, 2009 at 12:50 am
[...] 10 Reasons I Am A Libertarian Christian [...]
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 am
Good stuff Matt. Thanks for this.
November 26th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I enjoyed your post a lot and forwarded it to several friends for discussion. I agree with 9 out of 10
(hey, 90% isn’t bad!) But on #8, there’s an issue. Hospitals and doctors are not allowed to turn away
patients in need of critical care. My understanding of the Declaration of Geneva is that once someone
presents themself as a patient, their health becomes the doctor’s first consideration. So, if the care
is going to be provided, someone is going to end up paying, either by increased rates for everybody
or by taxation to reimburse the providers. I’m curious if you would advocate turning away patients,
or if there’s some other solution. Would you contend that your item #5 (caring for the poor
voluntarily) would be adequate to provide care for all who need it and can’t afford it?
November 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
You forgot that God abhors fake money.
Proverbs 11:1
The LORD abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Many Christians would take issue with number 2. Claiming that either all violence is prohibited by God or Christians can participate in offensive wars endorsed by God.
Also, if you’re looking at number 10 with a “just war” frame of mind (which you seems to be doing), Christians, as individuals, are prohibited from participating in that type of defense. Under Christian just war, Christians can only commit violent acts as agents of the state and not in cases of personal defense.
This Christian tradition, which most people and nations claim, runs in direct opposition to the Libertarian view on defense, war, and violence. So, I’ll have to disagree here.
Good article.
November 27th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Wurzel, I would not expect doctors and hospitals to turn people away in need of care. In fact, people were provided for before the government began a medicaid/welfare system. Your comment limits the choices to two: either taxation or higher prices. However, there is a third option which had been very popular previously and still continues today: charity. Dr. Ron Paul often mentions his time working at a church-run hospital, in which he provided “pro bono” medical care for people regularly. The reason we see less of this today is because the government is taxing us out of our ability to be charitable so that it can be “charitable” with our money.
November 27th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Rob Green,
Excellent! Yes, any one of those reasons could have easily been replaced by that, or added as a #11. God does hate fiat money. In a previous post, http://bounddragon.com/?p=427 I go into fractional reserve banking and make that point to some extent.
Thanks for the comment!
November 27th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Zane, so you don’t believe in defensive wars at all? I’m not sure that “most” libertarians hold that view. In fact, I’m not sure I know any.
What we can agree on, is that war is a horrible evil (even defensive wars are a horrible evil we shouldn’t have to participate in!) that plagues humanity and libertarians and Christians should abhor national aggression.
You may want to take it further than that even, but you do agree with that much at least, right?
Thanks for commenting!
November 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
You’re welcome! Great Blog, I’m going to bookmark it.
I might not have written clearly. It’s my experience that most libertarians hold a just war view. Believing that nations, and agents of, can and should only participate in war if it meets a set of criteria. Chief among them, that the cause is “just.” Libertarians might limit “just” to defensive wars, or offensive wars of last resort. You’re probably in a better position to gauge this, so I’m interested in your opinion.
In #10, you indicated that you believe in self-defense and referenced Nehemiah (a fantastic verse). It’s my understanding that the Christian just war tradition that violence can only be conducted by a legitimate civil authority or an agent thereof. It makes a distinction between the violence a Christian might commit as a Soldier (or an Airman) or as an individual. If this is indeed the correct understanding, it may be an issue for Chrisitan Libertarians who hold that view.
The issue really doesn’t have much to do with war as it does self defense. On that issue Christians aren’t of like mind. Me, I’m still not sure if I should sell my shirt to buy a sword or beat my shotgun into a plowshare. ha! The idea that god prohibits us from defending ourselves or our family is a very hard pill to swallow (with God, what isn’t?) but it isn’t totally without merit when you consider much of Jesus’ words.
No, I do believe in defensive wars, as evil as they are. I’m somewhere in the middle ground of the Christian Just War tradition. Violence of all types is atrocious though, and runs the risk of bending ones heart from God.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
I would suggest that it is time to consider a new metaphor for our faith and life on this planet . . . Every since Constantine combined power and the religion of Christianity it has been all about war . . . power exploits faith and faith exploits power . . .
Unless we find a new way of “visualizing” or journey the apocalyptic destruction is unavoidable regardless of how one interprets scripture . . .
To quote a famous Indian leader . . . an eye for an eye leave everyone blind . . .
Jesus shows us a more excellent way . . .
December 1st, 2009 at 11:12 am
I think God has a little more in mind in terms of “love your neighbor” that the Libertarian principle of non-aggression “No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation.”
Elsewhere the bible talks of love for one’s neighbour entailing duties to others – the good Samaritan went a bit further than just not initiating force.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Zane, I believe the Christian Just War Theory applies to wars against nations. Only a civil magistrate can declare war against a civil magistrate. It does not apply to the personal defense of one’s home or life, in that case one wouldn’t go to the Just War Theory to determine if you have the right to use force to defend your life. And, on that, Christians are divided.
Tim, I doubt one would be able to convince Christians to give up their faith in Christ because it has been used to fight unjust wars. In time, however, I think we could convince Christians to give up aggressive wars because of the teachings of Christ.
Madeleine, certainly God has more in mind with “love your neighbor”. The term includes the non-aggresion principle, but is not limited to it. However, in being called to love my neighbor (and therefore assist him as the good Samaritan did) I am to do so voluntarily. No where does God authorize the use of force or coercion (especially by the government) to require my loving my neighbor. This is what was meant by the parallel.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:19 am
[...] 10 Reasons I Am A Libertarian Christian This has been sitting open in my tabs since it was first posted, and lots of other Christian libertarians have linked to it but I still, having read it again, think it is brilliant and true. [...]
December 11th, 2009 at 6:28 am
As someone who claims for a long time to be a libertarian Christian, I offer these criticisms in hopes of graciously being iron sharpening iron (Proverbs 27:17
). With the exception of the caveat regarding the use of the word “government” in most of the ten points, I find little or nothing wrong with the following points, and I’m essentially in agreement with them as stated: #2, #3, #5, #7, #8, #9, and #10. What follows are quick-and-dirty suggestions for improving #1, along with a caveat regarding the use of the term “government”. Thanks in advance to Matt for posting the ten points and hosting this discussion. For the sake of not overstepping my welcome, I’ll forgo commenting on #4 and #6.
Regarding #1: Like Madeleine, I don’t believe “love your neighbor” and “the Libertarian principle of non-aggression” are “essentially synonymous”. I accept Matt’s clarification in Comment #14. But given that the interface between these two principles goes to the core of what it means to be a libertarian Christian, and given that the visible Church, America, and humanity all need for libertarian Christianity to come of age, and given that God would be richly glorified by such maturation, I need to take issue with the clarification as well.
As long as libertarian Christians don’t find some equivalent to the libertarian principle of non-aggression in the Bible, libertarian Christianity is not likely to gain many converts. Providentially, just such an equivalent verse exists, in Genesis 9:6
: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.” (NASB) A lot of people think this is strictly about murder. Because life and blood are equated in 9:4-5, it’s clear that bloodshed in 9:6 is metaphorical, both with respect to initiation of bloodshed and the punishment of bloodshed. So the verse can be paraphrased: “Whoever sheds man’s life, By man his life shall be shed …” What is the shedding of life initiated by one human against another? Common sense demands that it’s damage. So this verse is speaking of any kind of public or private delict (damage) (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#Delict).
December 11th, 2009 at 6:32 am
(Sorry I couldn’t fit all this into a single comment.)
By understanding that this verse is a term of a covenant, and by understanding that the Bible is a system of interconnected covenants which aggregate rationally into a single covenant, it becomes unavoidably obvious that all the laws in the Bible are terms of covenants, and terms within this single covenant. It also becomes obvious that the single covenant’s sub-covenants are limited by jurisdictional boundaries, and jurisdiction (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#Jurisdiction) in general exists only when subject matter jurisdiction (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#JurisSubjMatt), personal jurisdiction (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#PersonalJuris), and geographical jurisdiction (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#JurisGeo) exist simultaneously. Under such circumstances, it becomes clear that the Genesis 9:6
mandate is the only biblical prescription of human law that applies to the entire extant human race. It has personal jurisdiction over everybody because its covenant has personal jurisdiction over everybody. Unlike subsequent biblical covenants, the covenant in Genesis 9
transcends human choice the same way having human genes transcends human choice.
Because Genesis 9:6
is the only biblical prescription of human law (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#HumanLaw) that has a global in personam jurisdiction (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#JurisInPers), it is necessarily THE passage that is the biblical foundation for human government. But here we need a caveat.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Caveat re: “government”: Covenants and contracts are ubiquitous in Scripture. There is ample biblical evidence that contractual obligations are not to be taken lightly, and that breach of contract is therefore grounds for a legal action ex contractu (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/1_0_1_Legal_R.htm#ExContractu). Likewise, Genesis 9:6
makes it obvious that a delict is grounds for a legal action ex delicto (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/1_0_1_Legal_R.htm#ExDelicto). It’s essential to keep these two subject matters distinct because they’re associated with radically different personal jurisdictions. In traditional legal jargon, actions ex delicto have a global in personam jurisdiction because the duty not to commit a tort applies to every man in favor of every other man. But actions ex contractu can apply only to those party to the given contract. For the sake of keeping these two types of legal actions distinct, the http://bjp-tiaj.net website calls any society dedicated to enforcing actions ex delicto a “jural society” (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#JuralSociety), while it calls a society dedicated to enforcing actions ex contractu an “ecclesiastical society” (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#EcclesiastSociety). Every social compact (every society) (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#SocialCompact) combines these two types of sub-compacts, although prudence demands that they be kept distinct, even if not separate. The same website makes a distinction between a social compact that encompasses a single religion from a social compact (like the general and State governments in the u.S. of A.) that presumes to encompass multiple religions. The former that website calls a “religious social compact” (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#ReligiousSocComp). The latter it calls a “secular social compact” (http://www.bjp-tiaj.net/1_Helps/1_0_Glossaries/#SecularSocComp). The caveat is that some of the uses of the word “government” in these ten points are true for secular social compacts, but not true for religious social compacts, and vice versa.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:37 pm
[...] 10 Reasons I Am A Libertarian Christian (bounddragon.com) [...]