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.

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.

The government doesn’t need to enforce morality.

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.

except my political philosophy is more consistent than theirs.

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.

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.

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.

what I as a libertarian object to is a government that enforces a religious moral code,

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.

I don’t want my version of morality enshrined into law.

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?

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.

At least that’s logically consistent, although I’d strongly disagree with anarchism.

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.

http://www.liberalia.com/htm/tr_christian_libertarian.htm

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.

And what about theft and so on that *are* religious morals. Should the laws be eliminated since they enforce religious morality?

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.

The logical conclusion of Libertarianism is anarchy

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.

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]

FYI, that would be me. I usually post comments under the username Jew, but I like to use my real name on my articles.

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.

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.

KENNETH: I am only addressing why libertarian political beliefs are not inherently inconsistent with the Bible.

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?

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

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.

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.”

What about #2 and #3? Even if you reject #1, you’re still left with the inconsistent Libertarian and Biblical positions.

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?

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.

I’m assuming you have the classical Libertarian view abortion should be outlawed, and prostitution, drugs, etc legalized.

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.

[Libertarianism] chooses some of God’s law is acceptable to enforce while rejecting others

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.

I think we’re talking past each other a little bit, but I’ll try to respond.

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.

Abortion and prostitution are both sins in God’s eyes. Neither are acceptable to God, and Christians should neither condone nor support either act.

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 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.

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.

God doesn’t set up a hierarchy of sins in the Bible, after all

Exactly right. Hey, we agree!

Laws against abortion are justifiable on the grounds that abortion violates the baby’s right to life.

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).

Laws against abortion are justifiable on the grounds that abortion violates the baby’s right to life. … 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.

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.

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.

I *think* I understand your reasons. In any event, I don’t see much more to discuss — thanks for making your view clearer.

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?

His earthly government has not yet been established, and there is no substitute for it and no prerequisite to it.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Where is the reasonable line for victimless crimes and is that really much different from current laws?

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:

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.

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.

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.

A crime, by definition, requires a victim.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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