This essay responds to the common objection that libertarian ideology is inconsistent with a biblical worldview.
Isn’t that unchristian?
When I tell people I’m a libertarian, they look at me like I’m crazy. “Isn’t that unchristian?” they ask. “How can you support legalized drugs and gay marriage and immoral stuff? What about morality and God’s law?”
What about morality?
Good question. What about morality? I’m a proponent of biblical morality. It’s God’s law, after all. I believe that mind-altering drugs are bad, that homosexual acts are detestable to God, and that God hates sin. I don’t support sin. I just don’t think the government should get involved in punishing it. Let’s let God sort it out on judgement day. The government doesn’t need to enforce morality.
Shouldn’t governments enforce morality?
When I explain that, I get a response something like this: “But governments have to enforce morality. That’s why God gave us governments–to keep justice. Governments can’t condone sin.” That’s true. God did give us governments and he expects us to obey them. But do you really want the government to enforce God’s moral law? Many Christians will say yes, but they’re inconsistent about it. Let’s try this thought experiment.
- Do you think freedom of religion is a good idea? Most American Christians do. But idolatry is a sin. If the government enforces God’s morality, all religions except Christianity should be illegal. Many Protestants would like to outlaw the Catholic church. While we’re at it, we should outlaw some of the wishy-washy Protestant denominations too.
- Do you think freedom of speech is a good thing? Of course! It’s one of the basic civil liberties listed in the US Constitution. But God considers lying lips an abomination. If the government enforces God’s morality, lying–not just perjury under oath, but all forms of lying–should be illegal.
- Do you think gay marriage should be permitted? The standard Christian response is “Of course not, homosexuality is a sin.”
Does a “morality-enforcing” government really enforce God’s moral standard?
So to recap:
- Idolatry is a sin, but we should have freedom of religion.
- Lying is a sin, but we shouldn’t throw people in prison for lying.
- Homosexuality is a sin, so gay marriage should be illegal.
One of these things is not like the other one. Clearly, most Christians accept the fact that the government is not an instrument to enforce God’s laws–except for the particular moral laws that they find really, really important. That’s not consistent. There’s no biblical basis for permitting idolatry but erecting legal barriers to homosexuality.
Libertarianism is just more consistent, that’s all
So I don’t see any contradiction between being a Bible-believing Christian and an advocate for a minimalist libertarian government. I don’t support sin, but–like most other Christians–I don’t think the government needs to be the morality policeman. I’m just like most non-libertarian Christians, except my political philosophy is more consistent than theirs.
Should you be a libertarian?
Maybe. You don’t have to be. You can be a good Christian without being libertarian. The Bible doesn’t talk about political philosophy, so as Christians we have a great deal of freedom in this area. I won’t question your salvation or your theology if you’re a staunch Republican or a Democrat or a socialist. I hope you won’t question mine just because I’m a libertarian.
Good article. Very direct and simplistic. I agree with most everything stated.
I am, however, rethinking the gay marriage thing. Obviously I don’t support it because it seeks to redefine the institution of marriage altogether, and that has been around for thousands of years. Call it what you want, but two dudes can never be married.
But the question is: Should the government make such unions illegal? I don’t know whether they should or not. Certainly no local or state government is obliged to recognize something like that, so making it “illegal” doesn’t even seem necessary really. It sort of seems stupid to sanction it, but it is may be equally stupid to criminalize it.
Ron Paul has raised an interesting point on this. He views marriage as a religious institution rather than a civil one. I really don’t know how I feel about that, but that is an interesting take on the matter. Essentially his view holds that since it is primarily a religious institution, the government has no legal right to define it one way or another.
Chris A:
Two dudes can get married in Massachusetts and, as of this week, California. Those states ARE obliged to recognize such unions. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has already said that even if no such official recognition is required, state and local governments CANNOT criminally ban such relationships.
That’s all government *can* enforce (morality). Morality is just right and wrong. You can’t drive 80mph on the freeway because someone thinks it’s wrong. You can’t buy liquor after 2AM because someone thinks it’s wrong. All are *moral* judgments. If you don’t enforce morality, you don’t have laws.
What Libertarians claim is government shouldn’t enforce morality, but (I assume) you do want *some* laws, and those are a moral judgments. Libertarians just want *their* version of morality substituted.
Most people are honest and say they want the government to support *some* things and not others. Libertarians are inconsistent claiming government shouldn’t enforce morality, and then going on to state all the moral judgments they *do* want enforced.
I apologize for being unclear. Yes, by enforcing laws governments must make moral judgements. To be more clear, what I as a libertarian object to is a government that enforces a religious moral code, even a code that I agree with.
AC wrote: Libertarians just want *their* version of morality substituted.
I can see your point, but I don’t agree. I believe in biblical morality. God is not to be trifled with. His commandments must be obeyed. The consequence of disobedience is eternal suffering in hell. However, I don’t want my government to enforce biblical morals. So no, I don’t want my version of morality enshrined into law.
AC, that’s actually the reason why some libertarians on this board have shifted to anarchism, feeling that it is wrong for anyone to impose their morality on others. That said, libertarians primarily prohibit the use of force applied against other people. The rights of “life”, “liberty”, and “property” are all exclusively about the lack of right of others to take these things away from you against your will by force. Sure, those might be moral judgments, but they are also the most permissive one can get short of pure anarchy.
Note that I personally lean libertarian in theory, but in practice I am quite willing to put up with many of the lost liberties that a more traditional government imposes. Since I’ve never SEEN a libertarian government, it seems plausible that like communism it is a political theory that works far better on paper than in practice.
Oh, *religious* morals, not *regular* morals — now you’ve got other problems — what *are* religious morals? What religions qualify for exclusion? Christians only? Just the “big three”? What about druids?
Or is it just universally understood what is good and bad without religion? And who gets to make these (moral) decisions for society?
And what about theft and so on that *are* religious morals. Should the laws be eliminated since they enforce religious morality? If not, why then should drugs be legal, but theft not? Or are *some* religious morals acceptable? (which ones? from what religions?) If so, who gets to choose what religious morals are acceptable and what aren’t? And why? How? By what authority?
How can you do any of this if government can’t enforce morality (religious or otherwise) — without a defining moral absolute *your* definition of morality (or lack thereof) is just as good as anyone else’s and shouldn’t be forced onto anyone else — it’s a value relativism free-for-all.
Many Libertarians try to get out of this illogical trap by saying laws are acceptable to prevent harm to someone. But what is harm? To whom? Kids doing drugs hurt their parents, therefore drugs should be illegal — but Libertarians say drugs should be legal. So is it only physical harm triggering the legal moral exemption? What if the parent has a heart attack from stress? Will that trigger the harm clause? Again, who gets to make the decision for society? And on what basis and authority?
Or do we just redefine morality to eliminate the inconsistencies produced by Libertarianism? (You can’t just say religious morals are objectionable, because that raises many other problems as presumably *some* religious morals *are* acceptable - how do you determine which is which?)
All this involves *moral* decisions as well, and you’re right back to inconsistency if, as a Libertarian, government can’t make laws regarding morality.
But by NOT making laws, that is de facto morality enforced by the government — it’s just a different form (a negative version of morality, if you will). Libertarians want government to *not* enforce morality, but that’s enforcing morality as *they* define it, and thus becomes self-contradictory.
Just as the Cretan can’t say “all Cretans are liars” (or “the only absolute is there are no absolutes”), you can’t say government can’t enforce some (religious or otherwise) morals — as that in itself is a moral judgment Libertarians say shouldn’t be made; Libertarianism becomes illogical and self-contradicting.
The logical conclusion of Libertarianism is anarchy — no laws at all (religious or otherwise). That would be logically consistent (but not good to live with either).
Without moral absolutes, who/how/why gets to decide all this for everyone else? And without absolutes, what authority will they have?
At least that’s logically consistent, although I’d strongly disagree with anarchism.
“Chris A:
Two dudes can get married in Massachusetts and, as of this week, California. Those states ARE obliged to recognize such unions. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has already said that even if no such official recognition is required, state and local governments CANNOT criminally ban such relationships.”
John K:
Yeah, I know about Massachusetts and California. What I basically meant is that other states don’t have to recognize homosexual “marriages”. And to tell you the truth about it, I wouldn’t care too much if they did have to. So what? That won’t affect my faith one bit, because guess what? Sinners sin. Its always been that way despite this neo-patriotic “good ole days” when America was a “Christian” nation nonsense. And all the law-mongering in the world won’t stop that. So the world is going to hell in a handbasket. What else is new? I heard they’re taking the Ten Commandments out of court rooms and forced prayer out of public schools too. What on earth are we Christians going to do? You mean we won’t be able to force unbelievers to pray to a God they don’t know, or make them follow the commandments God gave to the children of Israel? My lands!
I was unable to verify your claim that the US Supreme Court has said “state and local governments CANNOT criminally ban such relationships.” If this is true, maybe you wouldn’t mind backing it up. If you are right, I would be the first one to admit it. But honestly it still wouldn’t really matter to me. Like I said, I don’t agree with homosexual marriage or the government sanction thereof, but on the other hand if they want to go around thinking they’re married, fine. I still don’t have to acknowledge it and neither do you.
Please don’t take offense to my sarcasm. It just happens to be the best way I can articulate what I feel is really a non-issue, considering the real challenges our country faces. Despite what it may seem like, I’m sympathetic to the other side of the argument because I used to be there myself. But after much consideration (waking up actually), I really just think this crusade is a waste of time and is obviously being used by those in power as a kind of political slight of hand. Such is the nature of these “hot button” issues.
I try to view all this from God’s perspective. Fact: He gave us free will in all things. We choose good or evil, on a daily basis. So why would we think that government should force people to choose? When they’re allowed to suffer the consequences of their decisions, some people even learn. No one learns anything when the consequence for every bad decision is jail. And even when someone makes the right choice, if they’ve done it to avoid jail, then God is not glorified. There’s an excellent article about this at:
http://www.liberalia.com/htm/tr_christian_libertarian.htm
I am happy to not be involved in an essay-writing contest for once. I just wanted to poke in and say that I completely agree with a lot of what AC is saying. I draw the exact opposite conclusion for preference - but he has hit the nail on the head that we basically have two logically consistent options:
1. legislate no morality (anarchism, private governments)
2. legislate morality (Christian, Greco Roman, Muslim, Secular, etc…)
Putting aside all pragmatic-first (basically, consequentialist) arguments (i.e. what “works” and “doesn’t work” empirically) as should be done - so that the pragmatics flow FROM logic, deductively (and we have never had a perfectly consistent “morality-based” or even a perfectly consistent “constitutional republic” for empirical analysis), we can then make meaningful arguments in this arena. Otherwise, we are playing with positivism - which is like arguing that we need to “test” that 2 2=4 or coin-flipping probabilities to truly know that it works.
For more on the logic required in this type of analysis, I highly recommend this lecture by Hans Hermann Hoppe.
Switching gears, I would argue that logically (and empirically, by way of scripture) we see exactly how something like Christian morality can and should work. And it is not by constitutional democracies based on a mishmash of law traditions governed by politicians and businessmen. It is by God himself when heaven and earth are remade. It is not logical to deduce that Christian morality can come in a sinful world from sinful men. It does not follow that perfect, consistent morality can come from imperfect, inconsistent, immoral men. Again, this is not realized through positivism - but through logic.
Being the kind of Christian that believes in the bible, and that it is literally true (radical, I know), then it is quite clear that Christians are to operate in-spite of governments, not to co-opt them. If Governments want to pick their morality to legislate as “Christian,” then it should not be led by Christians - not our job. We should be telling them, “you want society to be Christian? Then repent of your sins, turn to Christ Jesus and be born again.”
Christianity is philosophically ordered by God based on the presumption of free-will. Governments are philosophically ordered by men based on the presumption of power to violate free-will (even in “moral” situations such as “stopping” someone from killing). Christians must reject the use of secular power and authority for conversion and instead rely on the power of God, his gospel and the voluntary response of men to accept Jesus.
AC wrote:
No, we shouldn’t eliminate laws just because they happen to coincide with a religious commandment. That would still be a government based on religious morality, just in a twisted reverse sort of way. Instead, government should be based on some other principle. I believe a good place to start is by acknowledging the fundamental human rights of life, liberty, and property. Then we can devise a government that protects those rights for all people without violating those same rights in the name of the greater good.
You can tie yourself into knots trying to justify why it is good and right to protect life, liberty, and property. That is an interesting discussion, but it’s not something I was addressing in my article. I am only addressing why libertarian political beliefs are not inherently inconsistent with the Bible.
I think anarchy is one possible conclusion. It’s not the only possible scenario, though. Ayn Rand has a lot to say about why anarchy is unacceptable. My next article will address some reasons why I am not an anarchist.
I do want to note a point of agreement with Kenneth, that I agree that Christianity can still thrive under a limited libertarian government. I would argue that man’s nature will probably over-ride that government, but at least for some amount of time, Christianity and libertarianism are compatible in that sense.
AC, I’ve been where you are now, and its a common place to start from. While I don’t disregard “what works” as completely as Colin and Jew, their arguments ARE logically sound when accepting their initial assumptions. Initial assumptions can NEVER be attacked logically, since logic merely serves to determine the result of a given set of assumptions.
Colin’s assumptions:
Life, Personal Freedom of autonomy (liberty), and complete control of one’s belonging are immutable rights. Nobody has the right to take your money, your autonomy, or your life without your consent. This includes government, therefore the only legitimate government is one with specific and clear consent from those funding it and those ruled by it. The only time it is valid to violate someone else’s immutable rights is to recompense a specific wrong done by that person, such as when recovering stolen goods or demanding payment for damages done.
Kenneth Martin’s [edited to modify name] assumptions:
There is a hierarchy of the above rights, with life taking the highest, followed by liberty, followed by property. It is therefore valid for a commonly accepted government to seize someone’s property (taxes) to ensure the common life, liberty, and property of the general populous. This seizure should be done in some manner of equitable fashion (preferably voluntary funding). The argument is that these rights are meaningless if not explicitly protected, and that we have a corporate right and responsibility to protect these rights for others. So long as nobody else’s rights are directly harmed by one’s actions though, that person should be free to exercise their rights. Only a commonly accepted government has the authority to determine the limits on these rights.
Both sets of assumptions are internally consistent, but are not based on actual experimentation. In theory, communism is a valid economic model. It falls apart when people don’t work hard for the good of the people and cannot readily determine where their efforts are most needed for the common good. Democratic republics as a model was once highly experimental though, and have proven wildly successful. Whether libertarianism or anarchism have similarly rosy futures is yet to be determined.
[post edited to use the correct name]
Atanamis wrote: “Jews assumptions:”
FYI, that would be me. I usually post comments under the username Jew, but I like to use my real name on my articles.
“Being the kind of Christian that believes in the bible, and that it is literally true (radical, I know), then it is quite clear that Christians are to operate in-spite of governments, not to co-opt them. If Governments want to pick their morality to legislate as “Christian,” then it should not be led by Christians - not our job. We should be telling them, “you want society to be Christian? Then repent of your sins, turn to Christ Jesus and be born again.”
Christianity is philosophically ordered by God based on the presumption of free-will. Governments are philosophically ordered by men based on the presumption of power to violate free-will (even in “moral” situations such as “stopping” someone from killing). Christians must reject the use of secular power and authority for conversion and instead rely on the power of God, his gospel and the voluntary response of men to accept Jesus.”
Exactly. I couldn’t have said it better myself in a million years. There is so much truth here.
Maybe I should post the flash cartoon…
Let me just add to Atanamis’ generally correct analysis of my views, that I am fully willing to accept a compromise. However, I would probably argue just as Jefferson did that in order to combat the seeds of logical, moral and cultural decay in such a compromise - we need a fairly consistent state of revolution.
As corny as this will sound, I think that flash animation just sorta changed my life.
The animation has goofy music, otherwise, I think it is spot on.
I actually kinda liked the music.
OK, we’ll set aside the *secular* logical Libertarian inconsistencies for now and deal with Libertarians and the Bible in a *Christian* context only.
How do you reconcile James?
If you have the ability to stop evil, and do nothing, that’s sin to you. For example, in a religious context (not secular), if you have ability to stop abortion (do good), and fail to attempt to do so, you’ve got a problem.
Libertarians have many problems with the Bible, but start with:
1. By promoting the classical Libertarian view, you’re sinning by failing to act — sin is not just acts of commission, sin can also be acts of omission.
2. What’s differentiates abortion from prostitution (In GOD’s law — remember, we’re in a religious context)? Why is one good to outlaw and the other isn’t?
3. Why would God want one of his laws to be enforced, and not the other? How do you reconcile that in a *Christian* context? Did God say one sin is worse? Or is all sin equal? Or is some more equal than others?
Remember, we’re now in the religious arena, as you wished — you need a *Biblical* reason to justify the Libertarian goals of prostitution and drugs being legal, and abortion not (since life begins at birth, not conception) — otherwise we must conclude Libertarianism is inconsistent with the Bible as one Biblical principle is acceptable to governmentally enforce, the other isn’t. Is that not inconsistent?
Conclusion: Libertarianism is illogical and self-contradicting in both secular (where it logically becomes anarchy) *and* Christian (where it chooses some of God’s law is acceptable to enforce while rejecting others, making man the final authority — who wants to tell God?).
NOTE: I’m assuming you have the classical Libertarian view abortion should be outlawed, and prostitution, drugs, etc legalized.
Wait a second, AC. Let’s look at this verse you quoted from James. You’ve really taken serious liberties with this verse to try to prove your point, and you’ve taken it out of context. Let’s get a bit more of the context before we even think about using this in a discussion about personal political philosophy.
13Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
14Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
15For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
16But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
17Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
The verse you quoted is at the very end of chapter 4. The word “therefore” is a conjunction, so the meaning of what is said hinges on what was said before. What is the subject under discussion here? By your comments I assume you think this verse has to do with someone failing to act when an evil is committed by someone else. That’s not at all what is being spoken of here. It is clear by reading the verses that precede verse 17 that James is speaking of an attitude of independence from God, one that despises the counsel of God with respect to the conduct of his own life - not the lives or affairs of others.
Allow me the opportunity to paraphrase this passage for clarity. I too will take some liberties, but will try not to detract from the spirit of what is being said here.
“Why are you formulating your own business plans without respect to the will of God? Your life is short so don’t waste it speculating on things that are uncertain. You could be dead tomorrow. Rather than making decisions apart from the wisdom of God you should consult him first. And now you want to brag about your ambitions? Big mistake. You fail to realize that bragging in this way opposes the one you should serve. Don’t resist doing what you know you should do. Otherwise you are in sin.”
For the sake of argument Chris, and to stay on topic, I’ll forgo the debate on James (not that I agree, but don’t want to debate that point as it distracts from the real issue). We could use other verses with similar themes, but let’s stick to Libertarians and the Bible. The discussion on the principle of sin being both omission and commission we’ll table for now — and that’s the only reason the verse in James was used. (Your paraphrase said “Don’t resist doing what you know you should do. Otherwise you are in sin”)
What about #2 and #3? Even if you reject #1, you’re still left with the inconsistent Libertarian and Biblical positions.
AC wrote:
Thanks for responding, AC. You’re asking some good questions. I think we’re talking past each other a little bit, but I’ll try to respond.
1. Christians should act to oppose and prevent sin. There are many ways to do this. One way to do so would be to set up a government to enforce God’s laws, but that’s not the only way. Just because I don’t want a particular form of government doesn’t mean I condone sin or that I passively allow it to happen.
2. Abortion and prostitution are both sins in God’s eyes. Neither are acceptable to God, and Christians should neither condone nor support either act. Whether the government should be the instrument to forcibly stop abortion and prostitution is another question. As I mentioned in my article, most Christians already acknowledge that governments do not and should not enforce every biblical commandment (e.g., most Americans value the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech even though idolatry and lying are sins.) If those sins can be left unpunished and unregulated by the government, then there is no logical biblical reason why prostitution and abortion cannot also be permitted by the government. God doesn’t set up a hierarchy of sins in the Bible, after all. If we can accept a government that permits lies, we can accept one that permits prostitution.
3. God wants all his laws to be obeyed. No exceptions. However, I don’t see any place in the Bible where he commands Christians to set up governments to force the unbelieving public to follow biblical commandments. The church should vigorously instruct, reprimand, and punish believers when they sin. We’re even supposed to throw unrepentant sinners out of the church. Christians should confront unbelievers with their sins to bring them to conviction. But should we pass a law against a particular sin and have the government enforce it? I don’t see any biblical requirement to do that.
Yes, that’s correct. Laws against abortion are justifiable on the grounds that abortion violates the baby’s right to life. That’s predicated on the assumption that the unborn baby is a human being, which I think can be demonstrated medically.
I would say it differently. Libertarianism doesn’t pick and choose between which of God’s laws to enforce. Libertarianism completely rejects the idea that a government’s purpose is to enforce God’s laws.
Unfortunately, this is the biggest problem with this argument. I have been on both sides of this. Obviously, I currently hold a position much closer to Kenneth, but I do remember many arguments I had espousing something similar to AC.
From my own experience, it wasn’t that I failed to listen to the counter-points, I really was trying to understand, but I had equated secular law with biblical law. I could not fathom the idea of saying I agreed that such and such was sin, wrong and unbiblical but yet somehow agreeing that these should be permitted secularly. I am against these things! Shouldn’t I do everything I can to stop these bad, sinful, terrible things for happening? Also, growing up in a social tradition of citizen-government, I learned by osmosis that you project your biblical values through government. If I didn’t support bans on gay marriage, then I was, in fact, supporting it by omission.
I remember the argument that later caused me to change my view, and I believe what got me thinking about it differently was how I could disagree with Islamic secular law, but somehow support Chrisian secular law.
But that’s how the inconsistency occurs when Libertarians fight to outlaw abortion, but fight for legalized prostitution. That makes no sense if both are equal sins in God’s eyes.
Government can do three things: encourage behavior (tax breaks), do nothing, or actively discourage (prison). The question is, what if they do nothing? Kind of a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty scenario. By not fighting against something, you’re de facto promoting and accepting it (a principle enshrined in law and the courts, i.e. accomplice to crimes is chargeable even if you didn’t do the actual act), and you’ve said Christians should neither condone nor support — thus the problem. Failure to oppose is de facto actual support.
If you admit abortion should be legal under Libertarianism, at least then you’re logically consistent in that area. But most Libertarians (and Christians) don’t accept that premise, and thus the inconsistency rears its ugly head.
Are you saying abortion should remain legal? That would be consistent.
Exactly right. Hey, we agree!
That’s a *secular* argument, not a Biblical one (I thought we shifted from secular to Biblical discussion) — it doesn’t solve the contradiction in supporting one Biblical moral, and not others (we’ll leave untouched the issue of when human life begins — both sides are easily argued via secular logic. The Bible on the other hand, is quite clear).
OK, I think I see where you’re going with this. You’re using secular (life,liberty,etc) instead of Biblical reasons to justify one governmental law, and not the other (again, I thought we shifted to Biblical discussion, and solving the contradiction Biblicaly, but you’re justifying with secular logic) — God has no place in government and His law is irrelevant to government; whatever laws may or may not exist are wholly unrelated to Biblical values. They may coincide, or may not, but it doesn’t matter as secular (Libertarian) principles overrule God’s law. That’s the effective conclusion in reality, at least.
I don’t see how that solves the Christian contradiction in supporting some of God’s law and not others, and disagree with the conclusion (and premise), but I *think* I understand your reasons. In any event, I don’t see much more to discuss — thanks for making your view clearer.
“For the sake of argument Chris, and to stay on topic, I’ll forgo the debate on James (not that I agree, but don’t want to debate that point as it distracts from the real issue). We could use other verses with similar themes, but let’s stick to Libertarians and the Bible. The discussion on the principle of sin being both omission and commission we’ll table for now — and that’s the only reason the verse in James was used. (Your paraphrase said “Don’t resist doing what you know you should do. Otherwise you are in sin”)
What about #2 and #3? Even if you reject #1, you’re still left with the inconsistent Libertarian and Biblical positions.”
Well, I thought and still think your injecting of James in this argument is worth discussing, because it is apparent that your theological bias toward government intervention went into how you tried to use that verse. Your argument against Libertarianism is predicated on the idea that, as a Christian, one should fight sin through the government. Unless you can prove that, the whole thing isn’t worth discussing in a “Christian” context.
2. In God’s eyes abortion and prostitution are both sins. The Bible does speak about degrees of depravity, so I do not believe all sins are equal although I am not personally inclined to pick and choose which is worse. All sin separates man from God, so such discussion is futile. But you are confusing sins with crimes, and I don’t trust the government’s brand of theology so I am willing to allow them to punish criminals - not sinners who committ “victimless crimes”. Sin does not necessarily equal crime. Abortion is criminal because it involves the involuntary death of another human being. Prostitution involves two people committing sin voluntarily. If there is a victim, it is generally due to self-imposed victimhood.
3. The New Covenant is not a covenant based on laws like those in the Old Testament. That doesn’t mean that God has lowered his standards; it simply means that he has sent his Son to establish a New Covenant based on love whereby the sins of men are forgiven. Enforcing laws in the name of God leaves unbelievers with the wrong impression of Jesus, who was the fulfillment of the Law. For we are not under the Law, but under grace. Consider how the writer of Hebrews referred back to an Old Testament prophecy about the difference of this covenant:
16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
(Hebrews 10:16,17)
If we approach unbelievers with laws we attribute to the righteousness of God and attempt to usurp the base and human governmental systems to enforce them, we misrepresent Jesus. His earthly government has not yet been established, and there is no substitute for it and no prerequisite to it.
AC wrote:
Yep, I think you got it. We don’t agree, but I didn’t really expect to change anybody’s mind.
If you’d like, I could repeat my reasoning in all caps. Maybe that would change your mind?
Chris, I agree wholeheartedly. While I can view this argument as a legality or pragmatism issue, I think it is more improtantly seen as faith and obedience one.
As an aside (and I mean that, not trying to stawman-ify any arguments here), there is a fairly large portion of Christians that actually believe that we, as Christians, are to prepare* the earth for Christ by legislating morality. I have found it a striking coincidence that this group also tends to have pro-imperialist, anti-immigration, zionistic and nationalistic tendancies.
I wonder if these people have ever considered that the apocalypic one-world-religion-government-complex might very well have Christian overtones.
“Strawman-ify”…I like that.
But yeah, my experience is that the pro-imperialism and Zionism are part of the diet many Christians are being fed by the approved media sources. There is such a fear of the “liberal media” that people avoid it like the plague, running into the arms of hardliners. It is assumed that they are right on everything because they are right on some things, and many Christians are either too lazy to question the status quo or don’t want to rock the boat. I am not trying to strawman-ify by making over-simplified and sweeping generalizations, but I used to be part of that world so I think I know what I’m talking about. I resigned but lots of people I know are still there.
I am still trying to come to grips with my views toward the government of Israel, whether we owe any allegiance to them, etc. I think I am deprogramming myself, but I am still not concrete on some things. However, some of the things I have learned in the past few months have really raised questions about the Israel lobby. Some of these things I don’t dare speak about yet for fear of sounding anti-Semitic. Although I am not an anti-Semite, people are trained to get the wrong idea when you start talking about the Israeli regime, history, and basic Judaic theology.
This is sort of off-topic, but last week a minister friend of mine began talking to me about the incompatibility of Islam with the concept of Jesus as Messiah - which is a no-brainer anyway. Then I mentioned that Judaism was equally incompatible. I think that kind of disturbed him that I was willing to dare to equate Judaism with Islam in that regard. But its true nevertheless. What we have in American Evangelical circles is an obsession with the deception of Islam and a strange admiration of Judaism. And you absolutely cannot talk about it, even though both religions lead to the same hell and are built on the traditions of men. If you don’t support the Israeli regime against the Palestinians, people think you are a devil. Neutrality is not an option.
Hi guys..and gals, I’ve been too busy to comment for a while but, I’ve been trying to follow some of these good debates and discussions.
I like that Strawman-iffy label, in my experience most discussions are Strawman plenty like an army of zombies that you have to systematically decapitate. Some of it just comes from an extremist mentality in which something is taken to it’s logical extreme and then use the extreme to discredit the concept. I think it may be useful to challenge the thought process of extreme vs. balanced or moderate.
I would like to challenge the idea of extreme as Libertarian thought experiment and understand where an ideological construct meets reality.
CA’s quote: “All sin separates man from God, so such discussion is futile. But you are confusing sins with crimes, and I don’t trust the government’s brand of theology so I am willing to allow them to punish criminals - not sinners who committ “victimless crimes”. ”
This is an interesting concept, “victimless crimes”, but even this gets a little difficult unless someone lives alone in isolation in a cave. If you down a bottle of Bourbon get high on hallucinatory drugs and get in a car and drive 100 mph you jeapardize someone else’s life. Where is the reasonable line for victimless crimes and is that really much different from current laws? In a society, there is so much interconnectedness that it’s hard to not impact others unless you’re a hermit in a remote place.
I guess I’m asking how you face the idea of anarchy vs. “reasonable?, common sense” laws and develop each one in more applicable manner so it’s more than just a mental exercise. In anarchy are you looking at a MadMax type world where bands of gangs make their own laws or exact justice as they see fit? It seems where ever you pull back power, another force will come to fill the vacuum. And I think you not only have to address it from a local level, i.e. gangs and private groups that have power, but from a geopolitical power play. By bringing this up, I’m not advocating a particular level of power by the US for example, but I’m just making the point that Libertarian concepts of government would not or do not exist in a vacuum. So in the practical sense, like a physics problem, if you make a major change in force, you have to find a new level of equilibrium.
Or I should say it will find you.
It brings you back to the history of law and natural law as a basic “morality” of society vs. a more anarcharistic model which would be an experiment for which there are some historical examples to study. Maybe the Wild West days with “six-shooter” laws are a good fit.
I don’t know how you can have any anarchistic model though without destroying the environment, the water ways and habitat. Coming from CA, I don’t really like the enviro-Nazi’s interefering with everyday life, but a “no rules” model would concern me as well. The old “Buffalo Bill” days and mentality did some incredible damage to wildlife and without Teddy Roosevelt we may have lost all kinds of species. We nearly wiped out our deer population and others. And that was a kind of “nanny state” program.
Colin, Where do you really go with all this? I’m just really curious. There is obviously some very intelligent discussion and advanced concepts, but is there any tenable position at the end of it? Assuming I was to follow along and for the sake of intellectual curiosity, went along with the entire process of thought; where would I be at the end of it?
I’m probably just too new to Libertarian thought to comprehend it. I understand a more Liberty oriented equilibrium position, but can’t understand taking it to a point of seeming absurdity or at least an untenable position.
Mike, I’ll answer this because it was addressed to me, but this is not my article and I am deliberately avoiding the major thread of discussion in this topic (hence I have also avoided the portions in your reply which I think could use some rebuttal - maybe someone else will do it).
Kenneth’s position is that the most practical and close to consistent as possible articulation of libertarianism is in a very small, and legally limited government. I wouldn’t put words in his mouth, but I suspect it is something very, very similar to the type of government in the US before the War Between the States. And that is a working, empirical model. I would counter-argue that it obviously can’t last (both empirically in the US experience, and logically because of it’s built-in inconsistency regarding force).
As I already mentioned, I believe we have to stop letting pragmatism interfere with what is more fundamentally correct (a priori). We should build our societies from what we know is right. That “tenable position” is either perfect legislation of morality (Christianity is excluded in the immediate, as by definition, only God is perfect - a secular morality [Objectivism, Republicanism, Communism etc…] or man-made religious morality [e.g. Islam] is instead required) or no legislation of morality (anarchy). To be logically consistent, those seem to be your choices of where this is going on the ground.
“This is an interesting concept, “victimless crimes”, but even this gets a little difficult unless someone lives alone in isolation in a cave. If you down a bottle of Bourbon get high on hallucinatory drugs and get in a car and drive 100 mph you jeapardize someone else’s life. Where is the reasonable line for victimless crimes and is that really much different from current laws? In a society, there is so much interconnectedness that it’s hard to not impact others unless you’re a hermit in a remote place.”
Hey, Mike. I’m gonna have to play the strawman card on this one, because you come up with so-called victimless crimes that really aren’t in order to make the argument seem ridiculous. Drunk driving is obviously not a victimless crime since you are endangering the lives of others.
Let’s look at prohibition, for example, when alcohol and marijuana were criminalized. Is drinking alcohol a sin? Not necessarily, but for a time anyone who consumed alcohol was worthy of punishment. Because of society’s interconnectedness, one could argue that making wine could potentially lead to someone consuming too much alcohol, getting behind the wheel of a car, and killing people. Obviously consumption of alcohol is no longer considered criminal behavior, but marijuana use still is. So now you’ve got all these cancer patients who smoke pot so they don’t have to stay doped up on narcotics all the time, yet there are alcohol related fatalities every day. And these people are criminals? Why? Because they refuse to prop up the medical industry by getting addicted to their drugs?
Mike in OK wrote:
There is a reasonableness line. We don’t have to wait until someone actually harms us to take action. E.g., we don’t wait until the drunk driver causes a car wreck. No, we throw him in jail for reckless endangerment. Laws against drunk driving can be justified even under a libertarian minarchy. The key here is whether the so-called criminal is hurting or endangering others. I.e., if an addict takes drugs in the privacy of his own home and is hurting only himself, the libertarian government policy is to leave him alone. (As a Christian, I have a personal obligation to get involved and help that person, though. So I can’t let him destroy his life just because it’s legal to do so.) Whatever he’s doing to himself is his own business. However, the moment he endangers or threatens somebody else, he’s a criminal and must be punished.
As an aside: I try to avoid the term victimless crime, especially as it relates to drugs or sex. Those aren’t victimless; people are willingly victimizing themselves. I prefer instead to talk about coercion. If nobody is being coerced into an action, then it’s not a crime. There’s still a victim, though.
Colin wrote:
I’ve thought about that, but I’ve concluded that the pre-Civil War America is not a good model. To begin with, dual federalism (with federal and state governments) is just plain silly from a libertarian view. We need one government. Ayn Rand points out how ludicrous it is to have competing governments. Dual federalism just doesn’t work. Either it devolves into separate nation-states, or the central government gains power and the state governments become increasingly irrelevant. The only benefit of dual federalism comes when the state and federal governments spend their efforts fighting each other for power instead of spending their energies oppressing the public.
Second, the US Constitution is riddled with problems. It has some good ideas, particularly in how it values life, liberty, and property. However, it’s also broken: it specifically allows the state governments to violate some of those rights. The Constitution establishes patents and copyrights, which are incompatible with the right to property. Further, the Constitution grants Congress the power to suspend habeas corpus. It grants the power to levy taxes and to regulate commerce. These are incompatible with libertarian political principles.
Despite its faults I’d say the pre-Civil War American federal government was one of the closest thing to a libertarian government this world has ever seen. However, I can’t forget that the state governments at that time were much less libertarian, and they were the primary governments at the time.
“As an aside: I try to avoid the term victimless crime, especially as it relates to drugs or sex. Those aren’t victimless; people are willingly victimizing themselves. I prefer instead to talk about coercion. If nobody is being coerced into an action, then it’s not a crime. There’s still a victim, though.”
I completely agree. That’s why I initially used the term “victimless crime” in quotation marks. It just happens to be the term people are familiar with even if it isn’t entirely accurate as far as victimhood is concerned.
Good point Chris A. I missed the significance of the quote marks in your initial comment.
Well, to add my two cents to the semantics discussion. We could say “victimless” and it would be fine, because philosophically, one cannot “victimize” one’s self. I agree that “victimless crime” is a misnomer, but not for the reasons stated - in fact, it’s an oxymoron. A crime, by definition, requires a victim. So calling drug-use a “victimless crime” is not accurate, because it isn’t a crime. However, it is victimless because it is voluntary. All voluntary actions and exchanges (again, by definition) are victimless.
Aye.
This is not a generally accepted definition of “crime”. A “crime” is generally defined as violating a law passed by a generally recognized government. Whether anyone is hurt or not by the action is irrelevant if your action violates that law. An “forcible offense” requires someone who was offended, and would probably be a better term for what you are describing. Word definitions are only relevant in regards to popular usage, and popular usage of crime no longer requires anyone to be victimized or hurt.
“The government doesn’t need to enforce morality.”
That is part of what a government does. It defines limits. That is how this country has worked since its founding. The only word I don’t like is “enforce”. I don’t think they should do that either. However, that doesn’t mean I don’t think the government should make the stand and say “homosexuality/abortion/whatever” is wrong and it won’t be supported. You can do what you want, that is liberty. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. I think the founders would be horrified by what is happening morality wise in this country.
So as a Christian, you need to oppose sin. You do that in this country by your vote.
If I understand you correctly, I disagree with both your premise and your conclusion. I disagree that “popular usage” should define language. While I agree with the concept of language as a marketable (and changeable) medium, I think that using “popular” approval to define language is fraught with perils.
The question then becomes what “law” are we talking about? If there is one thing that can be readily agreed upon in this thread it is that people clearly have different concepts of what is “law.” You seem to argue, and have argued other places if I remember correctly, that law is whatever is in place by governing authorities. In that sense, yes, some governemnts consider shipping alcohol to be a crime bec ause it breaks their laws. But I say “law” in that I mean natural, preexisting law (the kind that governments, in theory, should be based on). Under nature’s rules, a victim requires aggression and a victimizer. A crime requires a perpetrator, a victim and aggression.
Words mean NOTHING more than the meaning given them by the speaker and hearer. “I hate you” can be a death threat or a term of endearment depending on those involved in the exchange. For the most part, this makes arguing about semantics a stupid argument since nobody can ever be “right”. What is more important is that we accurately transmit our intended meaning. If you are unwilling to allow usage to define words, how else COULD they be defined?
That said, when speaking publicly (say on a forum), it makes the most sense to use terms in their popular form. If someone has to know you are referring to the original Greek meaning for the term rather than the current popular usage, you are not communicating effectively. When someone uses the term “victimless crime”, they are CLEARLY referring to a situation wherein the government prohibits a behavior that does not directly impact a non-consenting person in a clearly harmful manner.
To call this an oxymoron based on a minority definition of “crime” is as silly as to call it an oxymoron based on a minority definition of “victimless” (as done by AC). Both intentionally ignore the intended meaning being presented to quibble over word history and definitions. Perhaps AC believes government has the right to prevent anyone from causing indirect harm to another, and should be allowed to prevent parents from eating unhealthy foods (which might cause the children to have to deal with an early death of a parent). This is the danger of pushing “victim” to include indirect damage due to choices we find harmful. In the end, there can be no freedom of personal autonomy if I am mandated to maximize the good of the community in my ever action. (Note that a Christian IS mandated to do God’s Will with every action, which is what James was addressing. A government should NEVER seek to play the role of God in the lives of its citizens. To do so is blasphemous.)
Atanamis, I am not arguing that words shouldn’t be defined by usage but “popular usage.” I agree that it is most pragmatic to use such terms with “popular usage” definitions in public discourse, unless first outlaying terms. What I disagree with is that the most popular form is the “correct” usage. If language is simply reduced to democracy, then it really does mean nothing.
I think this is the inherent problem with trying use “popular usage” let alone deduce a correct meaning for a term. Again, take “law.” AC seems to argue “law” is an amalgamation of biblical and secular. Say this to a muslim and they think something else. To an anarchist, objectivst, communist and so on…
First I need to ask you how you do those “cool” quote marks, so I can clearly show what I am referencing.
Second, in reference to Chris A comments:
“Let’s look at prohibition, for example, when alcohol and marijuana were criminalized. Is drinking alcohol a sin? Not necessarily, but for a time anyone who consumed alcohol was worthy of punishment. Because of society’s interconnectedness, one could argue that making wine could potentially lead to someone consuming too much alcohol, getting behind the wheel of a car, and killing people.”
I with you there; with a name like Lawless in Oklahoma, I probably would have been one of those Moonshine craftsmen determined to meet the needs of the community. Ditto for homemade wine and beer. Isn’t that why we have guns
? Don’t take my homebrew away! Liberty must be preserved!
I’m pretty much in agreement with Kenneth’s comments. As far as alcohol vs. other drugs there may be a few issues of their characteristics that are pertinent. As the old adage about alcohol vs. drugs: “with Alcohol you pay now and with drugs you pay later”; the hangover is a fairly short term experience to remind you of the consequence of over indulgence. With some drugs you don’t benefit from that warning sign and can decline into an extended period of incapacitance where a danger to others is complicated unless a person is able to exist in an extended state of inactivity, so to speak. I guess the level of threat relates to the level of inactivity and lack of mobility. Participation on every day life could create significant safety risk to others depending on their occupation.
I understand balanced, common sense simple, minimalist laws; I don’t comprehend abandonment of common sense laws in favor of some idealistic anarchistic objective that is ultimately an idealogical position of, …should I say “morality”.
It’s hard to “escape” morality since it’s integral to our search for truth. BTW, I loved that link from Colin for the animated presentation of Liberty. It was great and supremely clean in thought process, logic. Maybe, it needs to sink in more, but I’m not sure where that leads us in application.
Have a great weekend, Mike
Mike in OK wrote:
“I’m pretty much in agreement with Kenneth’s comments. As far as alcohol vs. other drugs there may be a few issues of their characteristics that are pertinent. As the old adage about alcohol vs. drugs: “with Alcohol you pay now and with drugs you pay later”; the hangover is a fairly short term experience to remind you of the consequence of over indulgence. With some drugs you don’t benefit from that warning sign and can decline into an extended period of incapacitance where a danger to others is complicated unless a person is able to exist in an extended state of inactivity, so to speak. I guess the level of threat relates to the level of inactivity and lack of mobility. Participation on every day life could create significant safety risk to others depending on their occupation.”
I’m afraid I must put on my medical hat for a moment and argue a bit with this. While indeed that may be an old adage with alcohol, it’s not necessarily true. Considering alcoholism is common, and the consequence of years and years of over indulgence fill hospitals, I’m not so sure that the idea of a “hangover” halting progression of a disease/addiction is true. While I’ve heard an argument similar to this before regarding the legalization of alcohol over other drugs, it is only logical when based on poor information. The true facts remain that from a pure medical/scientific standpoint, the legalization of alcohol over other substances doesn’t make that much sense, aside from societal tradition.
I’d go into more detail, but it’s late.
The stupidity isn’t being libertarian, it’s in being christian.
Christianity is no different from dancing at dusk around a stone idol. Religion is a lie, free yourself of it.
Ornot how about this chart from wikipedia:
That chart is very pretty!! Unfortunately, it doesn’t tell us much. It doesn’t rate how dependence is measured as a qualifier, nor how they rate “physical harm”. Do they rate it per use, per dependence, and what are the limits of the morbidity and mortality? Also, many of those drugs are synergistic when used together (alcohol with barbituates, alcohol with benzodiazepines), and they often ARE abused together.
Regardless, the graph doesn’t hurt my point (even though it tells nothing). Alcohol (and tobacco) are in the upper limits of physical harm and dependence, often above many of the other illegal substances listed on the graph. (Ketamine? Seriously? I mean, sure it’s bad, but I’m pretty sure that drug has fallen out of favour compared to most others. It was big in Vietnam, when it was still being routinely used as an anasthetic induction agent. It has now been replaced by propofol)
So my point is that the argument that “the other drugs are more addictive and more dangerous and that’s why tobacco and alcohol are legal” is an unfounded and unreasonable answer. While heroin can easily kill with a single overdose, if one becomes addicted, the withdrawl period will not kill you. That is, of course, compared to alcohol, where the withdrawl period can lead to Delirium Tremens, a very very dangerous side effect with a high level of morbidity/mortality.
*side note: For those that don’t know me/are new, I abhor the War against Drugs and feel that all substances should be deregulated. My attempt here is to demystify the “other substances are more dangerous” argument”.*
That is a great chart from Jasen. It provides some level of perspective.
Ornot:
I know that alcohol has many problems in spite of the hangover and obviously alcoholism is a real problem in may cases. I’m not in favor of Prohibition though and part of it is because of tradition. Even with the earlier discussions about the Last Supper, Jesus share bread and wine as his Body and Blood. If Jesus drinks wine, it’s good enough for me. Drinking rocket fuel is more dangerous than low alcohol beer. There are no guarantees for safety, but reasonableness is a good start. A previous pastor of mine, was a full blown alcoholic who became homeless before his conversion and unbelievable path to the priesthood, starting with the incredible benefits of AA. Before he became completely unravelled, he would drink a full bottle of Vodka a day; alone. That’s a path to destruction.
The chart makes a point of scale and impact. I’m not necessarily saying that Marijuana should be illegal either.
It’s probably good to start the discussion with something wildly dangerous like Heroin and see where the Libertarian model comes down on it. Alcohol in it’s natural forms gives us enough challenge to work at elusive goal of moderation and our society has developed good solutions for those who have been unable to take it on alone with AA and other great programs.
If we take on the question of whether Heroin should be legal or not, it’s a good mental exercise on the ideological views in application to real life.
On somewhat of a side note, I have a negative view of Marijuana, not because it’s as dangerous in a direct physical way and probably not as addictive as Cigarettes, but to me it seems like it has a long term change to mental attitude, especially to ambition. This may be more of an urban legend, but it seems anecdotally to be the case. I’m not sure what to make of that other than to discourage young people from smoking weed. I haven’t witnessed that problem with Cigar smokers for example. I think there’s something wrong with Cigarettes, but I don’t think it’s the Tobacco. I’m concerned that there is too much junk in those Cigarettes and folks would probably be better off smoking a pipe with Tobacco, but not Marijuana.
Just my personal impression, but no answers from a legal perspective.
It’s like my thoughts about Margerine and artificial sweeteners (Splenda, Nutrisweet and the like); my idea is to shame and ridicule people for consuming such garbage and promote real food. Ditto for Twinkie’s and Big Macs. I think peer pressure and public debate about merits and deficiencies of certain undesirable things do affect public behavoir. I hope it will just be so un-cool to use Margerine and Splenda and the like that people who fall for the Industrial Food like substances and the fake Marketing gimmicks will be seen as dupes.
Let’s see…who else can I insult? People that have caffeine free, diet Coke! That article from a while ago was great on our disconnect from real things!
I think I like posting on this blog, because you folks take on such challenging topics and have great insights. Of course simple answers are difficult, because we’re talking about Life. And Life is not simple.
BTW, My oldest daughter is walking across the country with a group called CrossRoads as a witness for the Pro-Life cause.http://www.crossroadswalk.com/
She was interviewed on EWTN two days ago. Have a great weekend, Mike
“That’s all government *can* enforce (morality). Morality is just right and wrong. You can’t drive 80mph on the freeway because someone thinks it’s wrong. You can’t buy liquor after 2AM because someone thinks it’s wrong. All are *moral* judgments. If you don’t enforce morality, you don’t have laws.”
Why do you statists continue to mistake legislating morality with protecting the rights of others?!?!? Speeding isn’t illegal because it’s wrong. It’s illegal because it infringes on the rights of others. Same with murder and theft.
** the “divine” impedes moral development **
Xian ethics is irrational, otherworldly, and impractical. It promises much, and delivers nothing. Jesus’ “interim ethic” couldn’t outlast one generation of true believers. The fideistic irrationality of Paul of Tarsus with its anti-intellectualism, misogyny, and revenge seeking has poisoned the West for 2,000 years.
Chinese culture was far luckier. From that very rational, this worldly, and practical book, The Analects, attributed to Confucius (500 BCE!):
6:20 Fan Ch’ih asked what constituted wisdom. The Master said, “To give one’s self earnestly to the duties due to men, and, while respecting spiritual beings, to keep aloof from them, may be called wisdom.”
15:23 Tsze-kung asked, saying, “Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life?” The Master said, “Is not ‘reciprocity’ such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” [trans. S.R. McIntyre 2003]
No god is needed to police human behavior. All ethics is irreducibly social. Harming others can not be generalized; otherwise, no culture could exist.
There’s no need to invoke evolution (or memes) — unless they’re Lamarkian — each generation of persons teaches the next.
bipolar2
© 2008
TheEngineer, I fail to see how speeding is an aggression against others. Speeding will definitely increase the risk and pottential for aggression, but the act itslef is not an aggression. Same with drunk driving - there is nothing inherently aggressive about putting others at *risk* - however, as soons as the drunk driver damages property or life, then he is fully responsible and a criminal.
Interesting topic and the responses are equally as interesting.
Moral or immoral are close calls in the law. Is it immoral to drive 80 MPH in a 60 zone? No. It is illegal, not immoral. This example is a safety issue in which a driver is endangering others.
Is it biblically immoral for two dudes to get married? Perhaps. Is it dangerous? No.
Should states ban this based on the claim, it will destroy the institution of marriage or it is immoral? No.
A civil marriage ceremony is simply a contract whereas a Church Wedding is a Biblical Contract. So long as there is never an attempt to ‘force’ churches to perform or recognize gay marriage churches should have no problem with this, the separation between government and religion is maintained, as it should be in all matters.
I believe in letting my or your church speak for God (though the message conveyed may not be the same) and the Constitution speak to law.
obg
The driving question is an interesting one as the skills levels are so vastly different. I think it would be cool to have private, voluntary evaluations from high performance groups like Bob Bondurant or some highly skilled group. Highly skilled drivers could have a special sticker on their car allowing them great latitude in driving, even under modest alcohol levels. At the low end of the scale, I think folks that have no knowledge of the Laws of Physics should be identified as such. At least then I could avoid them on the road as I pass at high speeds. I’m only half serious ;), but it would be a lot more fun.
“TheEngineer, I fail to see how speeding is an aggression against others. Speeding will definitely increase the risk and pottential for aggression, but the act itslef is not an aggression.”
I didn’t say it was an aggression (nor did I mean to imply that I even agree with the law). I said the law in question was passed based on rights of others, rather than on morality (i.e., the people who passed the law did so on the basis of public safety, and not on driving at 80 mph being “wrong”.
So, I was expressing the difference between laws on morality (like drinking in your own home) vs. laws that protect rights (murder, theft, ect). Nanny-staters often get confused by this distinction. It seems they respsond to Libertarian argument with statements like “well, I guess I’ll rob your house while you’re at work, since you don’t want morality legislated”. I think it’s sad that people think that way.
TheEngineer,
Have you really made a differentiation? Is not the basis of Public Safety a morality of some sort? Where does morality start and end? Who decides what morality is? The whole idea of public safety is still someone’s concept of right and wrong…therefore morality. Not to say that there aren’t plenty of bad laws, but just to make the point that all laws are some concept of morality. It was a lot more clear years ago when they were tied in a more logical way to Natural Law, in my opinion.
This seems like a better basis for Law and a solution than Anarchy, IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is sometimes opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be evoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.
Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[2] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence.
Mike in OK wrote:
Do you mean the blockquotes like above? I make them by typing a markup code like this:
Mike in OK wrote:
<blockquote>First I need to ask you how you do those “cool” quote marks, so I can clearly show what I am referencing.</blockquote>
Mike in OK wrote:
Mike in OK wrote:
Here’s a story that you Libertarians could appreciate:
My oldest son just turned 21 today. We always like to take our children out for dinner on their “big” birthdays: 16, 18 and especially 21.
Well here in Oklahoma, restaurants are not allowed to serve alcohol on Sundays, for some reason that escapes me. I would be in favor of having most shops closed on Sunday, but no alcohol on Sunday doesn’t make sense to me.
Anyway, we decided to take him out to Dinner last night, the night before his actual birthday for a great steak dinner and we were hoping that it would be close enough where they would allow him to enjoy a glass of good Pinot Noir with us. I guess they have pressure to comply or risk losing their license, but this did seem a bit ridiculous. I asked for a bottle of wine and three glasses and I served him (my Son), and the young server asked to see his ID, but I guess the server had mentioned something to the owner, so she came over and said he shouldn’t have any alcohol and something about some official in the restaurant. I think she was pretty befuddled. It wasn’t a big deal and he had some good drinks back at the house. But, it was quite silly and took something away from the evening. Usually the people at the restaurant are excited about a big birthday. I guess it must happen to about 1/7th of the people who turn 21, and Monday isn’t the best night for a birthday Dinner. I think I’ll give some politicians grief about this one.
This is the problem with laws is that they need some common sense. I guess they need to update the law to correct the inadvertent mess they created by banning the alcohol on Sundays in the first place.
Of course, I would like a lower drinking age if any at all. It would be healthier to teach moderate drinking with Dinner in the teen years so that alcohol wouldn’t be such a big deal. If you would let your 16 year old have a glass of wine with Dinner, at least on Sundays then they would develop a healthier mindset about alcohol than when they run off with their high school friends and find a place to drink as an act of defiance in some covert activity.