The contention generally arises from Libertarian Christians promoting prostitution and drugs

Libertarian Christians do not “promote” (or “advocate” as you say later) these things. They merely would permit them in secular, non-Christian society. This is not the same as promoting:

promote: to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further

advocate: to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly

I know that I and others here have stated this multiple times. It is imperative that you acknowledge this distinction for the conversation to continue.

But what is promote? Some argue doing nothing is not promotion, others argue doing nothing is. The reality is simple — if you’re a senator, and a bill comes across your desk about issue “x”, you are either supporting it or not by your vote. In the case of Libertarian morals, by actively opposing certain laws, they de-facto promote the activity.

“Promote” is what the word means - not the extra bits that you have assigned to it to make your argument.

This ignores the difference between personal opinion and public power. A senator is a public servant, an official, a legislator. By your logic, a senator must outlaw everything he disagrees with or risk “promoting it” - as there is no neutrality (but it’s not really neutrality - it is the active promotion of freedom). If he does not, he is “promoting” these things. Even a libertarian like me, if I were a senator, then I must support the outlawing of the following things I do not like: murder, abortion, drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, Islam, socialism, Bishop Shelby Spong, country music, mohawks and Christmas. Otherwise I am “de-facto [promoting] the activity.”

A senator is perfectly capable of being against certain things, but being for freedom. Valuing free-will and hating the choices made with free will are not mutually exclusive. God himself holds this position, created the world, and enabled salvation under this principle. Without this divine order man must either be made as robots with no free-will, or they must fear being zapped every time they oogle a woman. Thus salvation, even by Christ, is impossible, as men continue to contend with the flesh, even after obtaining salvation. They are condemned by their free-will.

So for the remainder of this subject, we’re discussing actions by individuals in government. The question becomes, how should a Christian act in government? Do the same rules applying to private life apply your actions as a public servant? Or should a Christian act differently because of their role in government? Should Libertarian philosophy overrule God’s law for the public servant?

This really isn’t a question relative to the libertarian position, and a straw-man. The very different question presented by libertarianism is “how should all people act, regardless of their position, job, title or responsibilities?” Libertarian Christians do not ask the politician to act any different.

When was the last time, you threatened violence, imprisonment or penalties against some homosexuals or liars? No Christian would ever do this - in fact he is not permitted to do this. If he is a senator or if he is a contractor. Otherwise we would be guilty of violating the principles presented in “Motives, Actions, Results” - namely, using the ends to justify the means. Just as you an I as non-politicians have no right to aggress against those who lie, commit adultery, gossip or do drugs, we do not obtain these rights if we become officials.

That is the fundamental position of libertarian Christianity. It has nothing to do with “[worshiping] knowledge and intellectualism” or any other such statement meant to condemn and ostracise. It is applying the bible consistently in all areas of life, in all kinds of society, without partiality, in purity and truth.

You disagree with my position. If you were a politician, and the bill came on your desk to outlaw my kind of thinking, would you do it? Would you throw me in jail like you would suggest I be subject to “a worse fate than hell”? Is that a consistent way to interpret your position that “It’s either for or against.” And as you articulate, you cannot be “against” without using the enforcement of secular authority afforded you as a politician.

By your logic, a senator must outlaw everything he disagrees with or risk “promoting it” … You disagree with my position. If you were a politician, and the bill came on your desk to outlaw my kind of thinking, would you do it? Would you throw me in jail like you would suggest I be subject to “a worse fate than hell”?

I think the Constitutional Conservative would check your opinions against the Bible, not against his personal opinion.

CC, I think you’ve skipped over a major question, and that is “What is the purpose of government?” Your conservative beliefs are logical and consistent if we presume a certain purpose for government–but I have a different view of the purpose of government. We have different expectations of what the government’s job is, so of course we differ on what we think the laws should be. As I’ve said before, I don’t think libertarianism is the only form of government that is compatible with biblical values. The Bible is largely silent on political theory, so we’re free to implement any number of systems.

The libertarian filter (LF) you mention does exist, in a way. It relates to the purpose of government. A law must be in accordance with the purpose of government. I guess you could view this in terms of spheres of authority. Government has authority over a certain narrow range of human activity. The LF is simply ensuring that a particular law is within the purview of the government’s authority. That’s only logical, after all. You wouldn’t expect a school board to pass a law against illegal immigration. That’s not within the scope of the school board’s authority. Similarly, not all proposed laws are within the scope of a government’s authority.

Of course if you start with a different view of the purpose and role of government, then you’ll have a bigger idea of what falls within the authority of the government, and you’ll come to different conclusions about some laws.

Here’s a thought: would it make a difference if a politician wasn’t limited to voting “Yes” or “No” on a bill? What if his options were Yes, No, and Out of Scope? Then he could vote Out of Scope on an issue that he felt was not within the government’s sphere of authority, without indicating or implying support.

I think the Constitutional Conservative would check your opinions against the Bible, not against his personal opinion.

Indeed, and he has maintained that my position is incompatible with the bible. Therefore, it follows that the consistent application of his logic, in the scenario I mention, is to outlaw my thinking. That necessarily follows that my thinking, if practised against the law, must also be punished.

CC, I think you’ve skipped over a major question, and that is “What is the purpose of government?”

Perhaps I have missed it, but I also fail to see how he has even answered the original question besides “It’s either for or against.”

This is where I think the Christian Conservative movement is way off base. People get all up in arms about whether the Ten Commandments should be posted in courtrooms as if it is there Christian duty, all the while excusing the fact that Christians were never intended to live by those commandments. By doing this they confuse unbelievers by the inconsistency of their arguments with the New Testament. Its not that we should break the Ten Commandments, because doing so would violate the law of love, but we do not live by a written code under the New Covenant. So then do we take the code given to Israel and make that punishable by secular authorities? I realize this is a bit much for people who are steeped in the Christian Conservative movement, but read the Bible; don’t take my word for it.

The law is a single system of living given to Israel, not the church of Jesus Christ. The Law does not mix with grace. We cannot piece together a neo-Mosaic Law, give it the name “Christian” and expect unbelievers to be answerable to it. Under the law if you break one commandment, you break them all (James 2:10,11). Under that system you are just as guilty whether you lie, covet, or murder.

So while we must develop our own moral code for the sake of a civil society, it cannot be taken verbatim from the Bible; that would require us to make too many exceptions and unfounded judgments. We may pattern laws after the biblical ones to some extent, but we cannot be dogmatic about them being “God’s law.” If we do that, we make ourselves hypocrites and open ourselves up to many valid criticisms. We cannot pick and choose which of God’s laws that should be punishable by our own standards. Remember, with God’s law - that is the Law of Moses - there were specific punishments meted out for their corresponding violations. Just as the Law was given by God, so were the punishments - the two are inseparable. While governments may be authorized to govern societies on behalf of the state, they have not been given unlimited authority to govern on behalf of God. That just isn’t biblical. One day Christ will establish his government, and it will be without end (Isaiah 9:7). But until then we can forget about a true theocracy.

promote: to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further

advocate: to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly

If you’re a senator, and a bill is under consideration for “X”, you will either “encourage to exist” or “recommend publicly” one side or the other by your yes vote, no vote, or abstention - it’s not possible to be neutral. You’re forced to make a choice as a senator on *every* bill which comes up by your vote (abstaining is equivalent to a no vote for the bill).

That’s the definition of promote and advocate — encourage to exist and recommend publicly whatever is in bill “X” (or not, depending on how the senator votes).

This has been covered waaaay too much and you disagree, so that’s just the way it is. Anyone who reads the discussion can make up their own mind.

This really isn’t a question relative to the libertarian position, and a straw-man

Actually, it was *your* statement about “I am not proposing any official government action, but rather actions by individuals” we used. We’ve assumed (in this case incorrectly) you’re arguing for the Libertarian position.

Sorry we didn’t understand some of what you say isn’t the Libertarian position.

The very different question presented by libertarianism is “how should all people act, regardless of their position, job, title or responsibilities?” Libertarian Christians do not ask the politician to act any different.

So when the politician supports prostitution, we should as well? Not a really good argument to make, methinks (and makes the Libertarian position *worse*, not better).

… applying the bible consistently in all areas of life, in all kinds of society, without partiality, in purity and truth.

And that’s the problem. Libertarians *don’t* do that. God says abortion is bad, Libertarians say it should outlawed. God says prostitution is bad, but Libertarians say it should be legal.

Not exactly the model of Biblical moral consistency — the consistency you’re using is the LF. You can’t simultaneously always follow Biblical morality *and* Libertarianism — they’re contradictory. As previously noted, JEW has an answer for this error, but it’s been rejected without a suitable alternative, thus the problem remains.

In any event, none of this is new. We’ve explained our position, you disagree. Not much more to be said on it - this is ground we’ve been over before.

The interesting point isn’t the disagreement, but *why* it exists — *if* agreement exists on “applying the bible consistently in all areas of life”, why the different outcomes?

Our theory says the explanation comes from your use of the LF, while we don’t.

JEW: I think the Constitutional Conservative would check your opinions against the Bible, not against his personal opinion.

Bingo.

I think you’ve skipped over a major question, and that is “What is the purpose of government?” Your conservative beliefs are logical and consistent if we presume a certain purpose for government — but I have a different view of the purpose of government

The article was just to answer a specific question (along with a lot of background). We’ve left undiscussed the purpose of government. As usual, your logic is sound, though we’ll likely differ on opinion.

The Bible is largely silent on political theory, so we’re free to implement any number of systems.

Our problem comes when someone says they follow the Bible, yet support part and not others. You’re not in that group, as previously stated you’ve said government is totally separate from Christianity. You’re logically consistent and have a well thought-out position. It’s a matter of opinion we respectfully disagree on.

But others saying the Bible applies in *all* areas have a problem when they say the Bible is to be followed *always*, in *all* situations, and then would outlaw abortion, but legalize prostitution as a senator.

That’s logically inconsistent, *if* you hold Biblical morality reigns supreme in *all* areas.

Your position disconnecting the two eliminates the contradiction and *is* consistent.

Here’s a thought: would it make a difference if a politician wasn’t limited to voting “Yes” or “No” on a bill? What if his options were Yes, No, and Out of Scope?

Isn’t “out of scope” the job of SCOTUS? (Seriously)

I also fail to see how he has even answered the original question …

Answer from the article in bold …

Q: COLIN: … which biblical imperatives justify that moral laws against sins (such as lying, adultery, and drug use) be automatically codified into secular laws in governments of men?

A: … a previous article by the questioner already answered: nothing (”As has been stated several times by multiple members of this blog, the bible has virtually nothing to say about political philosophy”). If that proves correct, it means you have no information — either for or against.

Actually, *you* (and others) already provided the answer (assuming the view about the Bible and politics is correct). If the Bible is silent you can’t even ask the question as no information exists.

Isn’t “out of scope” the job of SCOTUS? (Seriously)

It sometimes seems that way today. That wasn’t the intention, though, at least not as I understand it. Congress is supposed to respect the Constitution and not pass laws that contravene it. If Congress fails in its duty and passes unconstitutional laws, the President is supposed to veto those laws. (Way back in the day, some people thought that’s the only time a President is supposed to use his veto power. These days Presidents veto laws because they happen to prefer different policies.) Only if Congress and the President fail does the Supreme Court get to take a turn. The concept that the Supreme Court is the only arbiter of Constitutionality would be surprising to some of the Framers who didn’t think the Supreme Court even had the power to overturn a law on Constitutional ground.

That’s logically inconsistent, *if* you hold Biblical morality reigns supreme in *all* areas.”

CC: I’m going to ask, for the sake of clarification, that you speak in more specific terms with respect to biblical morality - and I don’t mean just the “hot button” issues. The Bible is a book containing 66 separate books. Not all of them apply directly to Christians, but were rather written for our admonition. I would like you to address that, since that is key to understanding how the Bible can be applied in any situation. In specific terms, define which books of the Bible can be applied to your idea of biblical morality. Certainly we can learn from all of the books, but we have to rightly divide the word of truth in order to apply it correctly. Do you believe that it is an obomination to handle a pig skin? Do you think men shouldn’t round the corners of their beards? Should we not eat pork or shellfish? Should we stone people to death? Which books would you omit as a means of constructing a basis for a moral government, and what criteria would you base those omissions on? Until you answer this, I am going to have a hard time taking your argument seriously.

See, I have a hard time reading much past this at the moment. Already, this portion of your argument falls apart on the grounds of understanding Libertarian principles. As you’ve said in comments to Colin, that his logic is sound, but you disagree on the basis of the notions of the foundations of the arguments. And part of that starts right here.

The “legislation of morality” is a buzz phrase. All governments do practice a compromise of sorts when forming laws. Libertarians (or Classical Liberals, as it were) believe that the compromise stems from the belief that a universal “code of morals”, to put it that way, stems from rights derived by merely living. We called them “natural rights”, and believed they were God-given and apply to all men and cannot be removed. It is from those basic principles that all laws are allowed to be formed and enforced by a government, and nothing more.

Beyond those natural laws, all other laws that infringe upon the natural laws are not to be enforced nor supported nor made. For as many have pointed out, where does one start? Alcohol? Dancing? Smoking cigars? Lying? Blasphemy? Divorce? This also begs a questions: Does the breaking of a law make you immoral, or does breaking of God’s laws make you immoral? Is going 65 in a 55 immoral, since you are breaking the law? A moralist says yes. A moralist also claims that there is no shifting morality. So therefore, speeding in order to rush to a hospital in an emergency is immoral! As you said, if “moral laws can’t be made, then no laws can be made, as they are all some idea of right and wrong.”

The problem, CC, is that they aren’t. Legislation of morality in a secular society does no more to promote right, truth or justice simply because if a law breaks one’s natural rights, people won’t respond. Stealing is wrong, because it breaks one’s right to property. Murder is wrong, because it takes one’s right to life. Right and wrong cannot be based on one belief system is a world where that is not the universal belief. This is why the idea of such a compromise as “natural rights” came into being. It allowed freedom of personal belief, action and practice within the bounds of maintaining order on Life, Liberty and Property. I know you believe in political compromise, as we’ve discussed it at length in person. I just believe that my level of compromise is at a mighty different set-point then yours.

As was said above, I find it hard to continue unless it is explained your belief on the purpose of government, and the ROLE of government. Without this, we are arguing based on our own different levels, and it will then become pointless.

On the other hand, if we are to legislate morality, whose? Christians would say, well, Christian morality, of course. But the Taliban would say their morality. And other groups likewise. But, we say, OUR morality is the correct one. Unfortunately, that’s the same argument everyone else uses. So not all morality can be legislated.

Thus while law and morality may overlap at times, neither one fully contains the other.

Libertarians simply say I won’t force you to do anything without your consent, if you abide by the same principle. I will not use force, except in self defense. And there’s nothing immoral about that.

I really feel I have used every literary mechanism at my disposal to craft my words in such a way so that it could be understand. I believe you have such a strong bias (I could even make up a “filter” theory, but I wouldn’t degrade your position to such a simplistic psychological absurdity) that you simply will not listen to the careful and precise way that I am articulating this position. I can offer no explanation for why this is, and I am not presumptive enough to offer a theory.

We can’t even have a meaningful discussion on the issue until you actually understand my position. You’re just arguing with these various clichés, demonizations and straw men (not all by your creation) and attaching them to my position. I spend more time dispelling these fallacies of interpretation, than I do in actually defending my position – we haven’t even made it that far.

It is ultimately a waste of my time to use so many resources to be clear and concise, and then have them not understood. In every single summary of my position, you have revealed that you cannot or will not comprehend it. Your arguments are against a position I do not advocate or hold.

I’d love to go on and on and on as I have done many times with other pieces and many on here will testify to my dedication to obtaining the truth regardless of whether my position is correct. But, and maybe this is a part of a maturing process, I have to know when it just isn’t going to make a difference.

I apologies for my inability to explain myself. If you take anything from this discussion (aside from understanding my position) then take the “faith” that I assure you I do not advocate the position you accuse (and I use that word “accuse” because you prescribe both secular and divine punishment for my position - you have made it clear that your current understanding of my thinking requires it be criminalized and condemned “worse than hell”). This is worse than when I was called anti-Semitic for disagreeing with certain policies of the State of Israel.

Maybe someone else will have the words to at least make the position known. Or perhaps this wont happen. Its’ hard not to care, though, but I don’t see another option at this point.

CHRIS: So if we use a blanket term like “God’s law”, what does that mean really?

Good question. Generally “God’s law” would refer to Biblical principles which apply to the Christian. “God’s Law” (capital L) would refer to Mosaic Law. It’s a concept which frequently causes confusion unless the distinction is clear.

Christians aren’t bound by Mosaic Law, but by God’s law, thus your 10 commandments discussion is almost right — Christians aren’t bound by the Sabbath, but some of the others (adultery) are repeated in the NT, thus the Christian *is* bound by them. But Christianity isn’t legalism or a list of dos and don’ts. Someone once said “Love the Lord with all your heart, and do whatever you want”. It’s not a legal relationship.

The Mosaic Law is for the Jews. Some principles were restated in the NT, and do apply to the Christian. It’s not a question of which books apply (they all do), but simply the Mosaic Law was for the Jews only; Christians are free to have a ham sandwich, if they wish.

It’s not a strictly OT vs. NT idea, but Mosaic Law verses grace.

If that’s not clear, let me know.

So while we must develop our own moral code for the sake of a civil society, it cannot be taken verbatim from the Bible; that would require us to make too many exceptions and unfounded judgments. We may pattern laws after the biblical ones to some extent, but we cannot be dogmatic about them being “God’s law.”

You’re taking a reasonable approach, but the question originally asked was a more black-and-white question, so we responded in kind and pointed out the illogical inconsistencies inherit in following some of God’s law and ignoring others. We’ll generally discuss topics in any context — if you want to discuss secularly, fine. Strictly logical with no gray area allowed, fine. According to Biblical morality, fine. A reasonable but not totally logical position, fine. But taking a less dogmatic and more flexible approach doesn’t appear too popular around here, so when in Rome ….

But trying to be 100% logical involves it’s own traps — at some point you’re forced to admit something isn’t logical, but it’s reasonable.

It’s quite easy (and reasonable) to advocate your position of a less dogmatic approach, and it has it’s merits. As we stated, most people don’t hold to strict logic standards, and for the ones who claim to, it’s only a matter of time before they realize they really don’t (even if they won’t admit it). Nobody really is as logical as Spock, no matter what they claim.

We’re generally not as dogmatic as the arguments would lead you to believe (it’s just debate) — the extremes are usually wrong and the truth is down the middle. While if God says it, then that’s the way it is; but if God isn’t explicit, we’ll generally take the reasonable approach and let it be a matter of opinion. But if you’re discussing with someone who *is* legalistic and dogmatic, it’s just easier to argue along those same lines; sometimes to make a point it’s easier to use something you don’t even believe.

That’s just debate.

The original discussion in the series of articles made a logical argument, so it makes sense to respond in kind. If it’s Biblical, we’d respond Biblically. If secular, we’d respond secularly. But in someone argues secularly, we would never responded with a Biblical argument — that makes no sense.

In reality, Jew’s position of completely separating government and religion avoids the theocracy argument, and avoids the contradiction of attempting to apply Biblical morality *everywhere* — even when you don’t. Your idea of basing government on Biblical principles, but not strictly has merit as well. With either view you’re just left with personal opinion on political matters.

As to grace, I want all I can get. People are much more comfortable with legalism, not grace. Here’s a list of do’s and don’ts and I can check off how I’m doing — sung a certain song on the approved list — check. Read a certain amount of the Bible — check. Went to church x times this week — check. Tithed Y% this month — check. And so on.

It’s human nature to struggle with grace and turn to legalism, and quite common. A Christian can only sing these songs, only use these instruments, only attend church on this day, and so on. Legalism creeps into your relationship with Christ, and then it’s a small jump to apply the same legalistic it-has-to-be-this-way to other areas. It becomes a type of Pharisaical purity where if you follow the “rules”, you’re “spiritual” — even if God didn’t say so. God told the Jews to obey the Sabbath. But that wasn’t good enough, and they defined hundreds of rules about it. God says to worship in spirit and truth, but that doesn’t mean a list of approved songs and instruments exist.

Much of the discussion here gets way too legalistic for our tastes, but we recognize some people are just more comfortable with it, so so be it. In short, Christians aren’t governed by legalism (do this and don’t do that), but by God’s principles, which commonly are referred to as God’s law.

We hope that clears it up a bit, if not, ask away as it’s a much more profitable discussion than politics…

So what’s the Libertarian principle we’ve missed? *SOME* legislative morality is acceptable? None? Or whose? Here’s your answer it appears:

ORNOT: All governments do practice a compromise of sorts when forming laws. Libertarians (or Classical Liberals, as it were) believe that the compromise stems from the belief that a universal “code of morals”, to put it that way, stems from rights derived by merely living

That is a moral judgment. If government can’t legislate morality, you’ve got a problem. It also violates “don’t push your morality on me”.

It’s really simple, Libertarians don’t really mean they don’t want government to legislate morality at all, they just want *their* version of right and wrong enforced, what you called a universal “code of morals”. Libertarians are no different than any other group — they want what they want. But it’s then wrong to hide behind “don’t push your morality on me”. The only difference between Libertarians and others is *what* morality is to be enforced.

ORNOT: I know you believe in political compromise … my level of compromise is at a mighty different set-point then yours. … All governments do practice a compromise of sorts when forming laws.

We’re going to open up Pandora’s box on this one, but hey, we’ll blame it on you as you brought it up — this will be a hurried response, so we reserve the right to modify it later
It’s clear some have misunderstood what’s really going on. This is a debate - nothing more, nothing less. It’s apparently been missed the many times we’ve used “*IF*, since, or something similar (apparently we should have used it more, but it gets repetitive). That should have been a clue it’s not necessarily *exactly* what we believe, it’s just a logical argument. That doesn’t diminish the argument or conclusions of course, but attempting to apply the debate to what we actually believe can prove false.

The original presumption in a series of articles was Libertarianism’s logical basis. We’ve demonstrated (in a logical basis) how that position is absurd. Disagree if you will, fine. No big deal. As we noted above to Chris, we’ll discuss a subject in any context you wish: Biblical, secular, logical, and so on. It’s just debate, and as long as we agree on the rules, it’s all fine. The original context was a logical one, and we responded to show how illogical it was (always follow the Bible, but allow prostitution).

However, that doesn’t imply we’re equally as rigid — it’s just a debate. As noted in our response to Chris above, we’re not nearly so dogmatic as this debate would have you believe. We’re just making the point if you actually think Libertarianism is logical, you’ve got quite a few problems to work thorough. Jew already solved them for himself, and it would be interesting to know your input — *IF* the Bible is supreme and is to be followed, how does a senator then support legalized prostitution? Or is government separate, as Jew states? Your Libertarian input would be interesting on the question, as it appears Libertarians differ amongst themselves on the issue.

So the question is, outside the debate, what would we do? What government system would we actually advocate?

The philosophy of government is simple — the framers had it right. But that’s a theory, not practice. For Jew, government and religion are totally separate. We respect that, but if your religion is supreme in your life, it doesn’t make much sense. However, the dangers of theocracy are well-known, so the other extreme is to be avoided as well. So what works?

As you noted, compromise. We haven’t brought it up, as the discussion up to now has concerned pure logical analysis, and how Libertarianism fails that test. But you noted (as well as others), everything is a compromise, and that’s quite true. If a Libertarian admits their position is illogical, but they like it anyway, at least that’s human.

Forming the government on Biblical principles, but moderate that a bit as government isn’t intended to be religious (freedom TO religion, not freedom FROM religion). It turns out many areas of Biblical morality also agree with society’s goals — prostitution is bad by God, it’s bad for society. But to make a law requiring church attendance or thought-police is absurd.

For those who think government should be an arm of the church, it makes sense to setup a theocracy. For those who think they’re totally separate, it makes sense to support legalized prostitution.

We reject both extremes.

Perhaps the idea can be made clearer by considering the discussion around capitalism. Capitalism is the best economic system by far, but we all know what happens if capitalism is unrestrained. After all, man is selfish and self-serving and many will happily dump toxic waste in pursuit of $$$. Capitalism *uses* the inherent greedy and self-serving characteristic of man, but also needs restraint. Of course, the amount of restraint is the issue.

Similarly, we’d *never* be so dogmatic (as you pointed out), to promote a theocracy or other such rigid system, but neither would we take the Libertarian “everyone does what is right in their own eyes” position either. Extremes are almost always wrong. It’s *reasonable* to base government on Biblical principles, as much Biblical morality agrees with creating a happy society as well. The discussion is on how much. We’d say promoting prostitution crosses the line, others disagree.

However, if you believe the Bible is supreme and always to be followed, you’ve got a problem with Libertarians supporting prostitution. You can moderate the position and admit it’s a compromise for political or other reasons, or make them separate (as Jew), or just admit the contradiction and move on, or something entirely different.

Perhaps the misunderstanding took place due to the discussion about Libertarian logic (an oxymoron). The discussion started logically, and we just kept it in that arena. But as the article points out, nobody really holds to that position, even if they claim. At some point, everything is a compromise of sorts.

It’s quite possible many (most?) Libertarians really acknowledge their position is illogical, but they want it anyway. If so, the discussion becomes one of opinion, not logic. Those who seek to deny the inherit contradiction end up in a verbal twister game trying to defend the indefensible. Entertaining to watch, perhaps, but not very productive.

The moderate position we’d actually promote satisfies neither extreme — the Libertarian “anything goes” position, nor those who actually want theocracy or religious legalism.

That’s not necessarily logical (and why we haven’t mentioned it until now) — but it is reasonable.

Or is government separate, as Jew states?

You keep making a big deal out of how I believe that the government is not (or should not be) based on the Bible. That’s true. I would like to point out that even a politician must still abide by God’s moral law, in his public acts as well as his personal life. God’s laws apply all the time, in all situations.

So if I were a politician, I could not take any action contrary to Scripture. God says adultery is a sin, so I cannot commit adultery in my private life. As a politician, I could not vote for or advocate any law that required me or anyone else to sin by committing adultery. But in both my private life and in my public life, I would not use force to stop an unbeliever from committing adultery. There isn’t a biblical requirement for me to do so. (However, I admit that there isn’t a biblical decree against doing so, either.) I would advocate the use of church discipline against an adulterer. That’s what the Bible commands (see Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5.) But that’s a church matter, not a government matter.

So really, I don’t look at government and decide to just ignore God and his laws when it comes to politics. I think the underlying reasoning for libertarianism doesn’t require God or the Bible, but it still must be compatible with the Bible in order to be acceptable to the Christian.

For me personally, religion does influence my view of politics. I believe the rights of life, liberty, and property are granted by God. Non-christian libertarians have to concoct some convoluted justification for where those rights came from, but for me it’s pretty easy: rights come from God.

Similarly, we’d *never* be so dogmatic (as you pointed out), to promote a theocracy or other such rigid system, but neither would we take the Libertarian “everyone does what is right in their own eyes” position either. Extremes are almost always wrong. It’s *reasonable* to base government on Biblical principles, as much Biblical morality agrees with creating a happy society as well. The discussion is on how much. We’d say promoting prostitution crosses the line, others disagree.

See, this is where it becomes painfully obvious that no matter HOW much is explained to you, you really, really don’t get it.

Libertarianism does NOT operate under the “everyone does what is right in their own eyes” position. It never has. Indeed, it does have a basic set of rules, as has been explained ad nauseum. One indeed can do anything they like, within the bounds of personal freedom. Within that personal freedom, one cannot be an aggressor against anyone without due cause (such as you attacking me, aggressive against me, means I can become aggressive defensively to defend myself) I believe a man is allowed to drink alcohol. I do not believe a man can drink alcohol to the point of intoxication then run over children. I believe men and women are allowed to have mutual, consensual sex with one another, as many times as they want. I do NOT believe a man may force himself on a woman and force her to have sex. I do believe that capitalism may flourish, but I do not believe that a company may destroy another company by force or aggression.

Yet here you speak of “restraints of capitalism”, as if without outside intervention of “restraint”, things go awry. (This is an assumption) Then turn and say that Libertarians believe in “everyone doing what they want and going anarchist”. This isn’t true. We just believe that the government’s role is the enforce laws that PROTECT BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS/FREEDOMS, such as those mentioned above. So yes, I believe in unfettered, unrestrained and unregulated Capitalism. YET, if a businessman/business/etc tramples such rights of citizens, they are to be punished. The need for extra regulation and petty laws is EXACTLY what leads us to the litigation-type society that we live in.

Despite pages and pages of text, you seem to not understand even the basics of the philosophy of what we speak. We do not speak in illogic, we speak in reason. You say that ALL laws represent someone’s interpretation of right/wrong, making it morality, meaning that governments can ONLY legislate morality. That, in itself, is illogical thought on your part. You have laid claim to a definition that is true only to yourself. You see, Libertarians believe that governments have the right to PROTECT RIGHTS, not to enforce MORALITY.

Rights = Basic human privledges provided to ALL PEOPLE that cannot be removed. They can only be suppressed by those who aggress.

Morality = A set of rules that determine right and wrong. Such sets of rules change per interpretation, religion, creed and philosophy.

It was here that the framers based the Constitution, on a firm set of inalienable rights believed to belong to all people. This was the equal ground, and the rest was up to ourselves. When I said compromise, i meant between the thought processes of YOU AND I, or people like us. While basic human rights/freedoms ARE indeed moral, NOT ALL MORAL LAWS/RULES ARE RIGHTS. So which morals can be enforced and which ones cannot? If a moral code were to become secular law and thereby infringe upon basic rights, it should not become a law.

However, I wish that this opposing argument was better presented, or more to the point: I wish that the article was actually arguing with Libertarianism and not a straw-man version of Libertarianism. The discussion following the article only confirms what the article implies: that the author does not have a firm grasp on what it means to be a Libertarian.

I’ve enjoyed the comments the author has made on many of the articles on this site. He has made many valid points and is clearly intelligent and well-written. However, this article cannot further a decent discussion about Libertarianism if it is built on sand.

And I have to say that the definition of God’s law is perfectly applicable to this discussion since it was a big part of the argument against the straw-man version of Libertarianism. I’m still unclear on that. The Law of Moses was written to the Jews; this we can agree upon. But then to whom were the epistles written? Certainly, they weren’t written to the secular world. And they were not intended to be laws. In either case the Bible is specific about its audience. Just as the Law of Moses was not used for people outside of that covenant, the same is true for the New Covenant. If we try to make laws from a purely Christian perspective on God’s word as it specifically applies to Christians, we immediately reestablish legalism.

What did you think the good points were?

Some will argue that execution is different because it imposes a wrongful penalty. In fact, a libertarian (and in fact the majority of the populous) would argue that imprisonment is a wrongful penalty to impose for sin. I doubt anyone here would have a problem with government making non-binding resolutions indicating that it believes sinful behavior is not acceptable. Where people begin to have disagreement is when we use force to punish those in violation. The ONLY power government has is the ability to use force. The church can (and should) make statements of disagreement with sinful behavior, but unless we are interested in using force there is no meaningful role for government. Nobody is arguing that the same person can’t be a speaker in both government and the church, but usage of force should remain exclusively the domain of the government.

I would seriously recommend that the author read John Locke. The idea that the heart cannot be controlled by force is central to the foundations of the US, and was core to the mindsets of the founding fathers of the US. These men were deeply religious men who recognized that force only needs to be used to counter illegitimate usage of force. This is logical, since behavior can best be addressed by changing the heart, so long as the behavior does not forcibly impose on the rights of others. The libertarian position is logical and has strong support in the literature that led to the founding of the US. The position described in the article most closely reflects the mindset of the Crusades and the Inquisition, with the idea that those who do not adhere to a Christian lifestyle should be forcibly converted by the sword. This mindset is illogical, and based entirely by assuming conclusions not found in Scripture and not supported by observations of reality.

How many times has a Libertarian said “Government can’t legislate morality”? But that’s all government *can* legislate.

More intellectual dishonesty. Morality is in the heart. Government CANNOT legislate the heart, or even detect its status. Government can only legislate the use of force to control behavior. Government can outlaw porn, but the problem with porn is not photographs but lust. As Jesus stated, merely looking at a woman lustfully is equivalent to adultery. To consistently enforce this moral requirement, we would need to imprison anyone who engaged in lust.

Government CANNOT legislate morality. This isn’t an opinion, but fact supported by Scripture. No Christian can accept the Bible and believe otherwise. Further, we don’t help sinners by preventing them from engaging in sinful actions. There is nothing we CAN do to help a sinner short of converting them. Whatever niceties we might do by locking them in a cage so they can’t physically engage in acts of sin are going to be negated when they go to Hell for their sins. By allowing them to see the natural damage that results in their life from their sin, they are more likely to see their need for a Savior.

It still makes sense to physically prevent them from directly killing, physically hurting or restraining, or taking property from others. Even anarchists agree with this use of force, which is needed to prevent the complete physical dominance of the strong. (I have known pacifists who opposed the use of any lethal force against unbelievers, but they are an extreme minority.) This is not legislating morality, merely preventing the use of force against “members” of the government. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge this distinction, we can do little more than wait for you to become more mature in your thinking.

(While I assume you are likely a high school student, it wouldn’t make much difference if you are a father of 4. Your mental state is extremely unwilling to understand the ideas of others. Even if you disagree, you should at least be willing to understand a position before refuting it.)

Moving on. As has been said now by many, many people - it is obvious that the author does not understand the position it attempted to refute, thereby making his point merely fluff and moot. I do, however, encourage the author to read/study up on Libertarianism and not rely on personal opinions/observations as fact and reality. It would save a whole lot of typing.

Atanamis, I don’t think I have ever been more in agreement with anything you have said - except the part about assuming this guy is in high school.

Yeah, that was just me engaging in a bit of flamebait, and I shouldn’t have done it since it likely diminished what was otherwise a very solid posting. I just find it frustrating that someone would bullheadedly attempt to refute a position which they have firmly refused to understand. I disagree with libertarianism on practical reasons (it has never been proven to work), but I do try to understand the logic of my opponents before refuting it. The writer of the article appears to have made no attempt to do so.

His choice to beg the question suggests that he doesn’t even feel the core area of disagreement merits discussion. I would be interested in a follow up article explaining in greater detail why he feels that a refusal to seek to physically prevent all sinful behavior from taking place indicates a support for that sin, and whether he has any disagreements with the Inquisition apart from doctrinal disputes on the positions they choose to enforce.

The whole thing struck me as being on the level of political mudslinging. Essentially the objective in that type of situation is to win the argument in sound bites. You cannot concede that your opponent’s position has any merit for fear of showing weakness, especially if you have expressed a much different view. (Barack Obama needs to hear this.) It works on TV because there is very little audience participation, and your opponent has the same objective. He’ll go toe-to-toe with you because he has to. But in a scenario where you have to thoughtfully explain your position, that’s altogether different and obviously harder to do. Its more of an intellectual exercise than a witty shouting match or an unexpected knee to the groin.

I also hope CC will write some more articles for us, though. I would like to know what he means by “Constitutional Conservative”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

“According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (socialism) or wealthy private individuals (capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”[3]

Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property. Distributism holds that, while socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers’ control), and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. As Hilaire Belloc stated, the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains “an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production.”[4] This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.[5]

Distributism has often been described as a third way of economic order between socialism and capitalism. However, some have seen it more as an aspiration, which has been successfully realised in the short term by commitment to the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (these being built into financially independent local co-operatives).”

and related to that: Subsidiarity

“Distributism puts great emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity. This principle holds that no larger unit (whether social, economic, or political) should perform a function which can be performed by a smaller unit. Thus, any activity of production (which distributism holds to be the most important part of any economy) ought to be performed by the smallest possible unit. This helps support distributism’s argument that smaller units, families if possible, ought to be in control of the means of production, rather than the large units typical of modern economies.”

That’s an easy answer to a complex subject.
You may find this commentary from 1927 to be quite enlightening on Capitalism, Socialism and related views on economic models. See how this holds up to your own.

http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Sanity.txt