Is Libertarian philosophy Biblical? The contention generally arises from Libertarian Christians promoting prostitution and drugs (or other un-Godly actions), according to Libertarian philosophy. Does a Biblical motive exist for such a position? Or the contrary? The question is:
… 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? For extra credit: why should sins such as drugs and prostitution be illegal, but sins such as lying, breaking the Sabbath and stumbling a brother not be punished by secular courts and police?
It’s going to take a bit to get to the answer as suitable groundwork must be laid. The question (and answer) isn’t actually the interesting part of this issue as it will turn out.
The Libertarian Problem
Libertarianism is liberal on foreign policy and social policy, while conservative fiscally. We’ll discuss motives in a bit, but for now just note Libertarians may not agree with the left’s motives, but they do agree on actions (legal drugs, and so on). On foreign policy, it’s because the Democrats aren’t far enough left which disturbs some Libertarians.
Libertarianism and Christianity — a combination rejected decades ago as it’s just not possible to justify promoting certain actions while ignoring others — Liberal social policy is anathema to Conservatives. 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.
It’s just not possible as a senator to be neutral. It’s either for or against. Just as some say “I don’t really want to think about Jesus, so I’m not saying no, I’m just neutral” — you must make a decision, either for or against. Avoiding the issue just means a decision will be made without your action, but that won’t remove your responsibility.
Obviously Libertarians disagree.
Nebo
The base nature of Libertarianism is self-contradicting. It’s not possible to state “Government can’t legislate morality”, just as “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars (Titus 1:12 KJV)” is also self-contradicting. Morality is just right and wrong, good and bad. You can’t drive 90mph on the freeway because someone thought it’s bad — that’s a moral judgment. The only thing government can legislate is morality.
Thus, when a Libertarian states Government can’t legislate morality, they’re really promoting anarchy — if moral laws can’t be made, no laws can be made, as they’re all some idea of right and wrong.
It’s entertaining to watch the verbal twister played by Libertarians when this basic self-contradiction is pointed out. Most people (Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans and Democrats) at some point admit their position isn’t totally logical and consistent, but that’s the way they want it anyway. That’s honest.
But some worship knowledge and intellectualism — it’s their god. Ancient Babylon had their god of knowledge (Nebo) and it remains today in intellectual circles to those who worship logic, knowledge and intellectualism. It’s what Paul encountered in Athens in Acts 17 as the Greeks desired to argue about something new (what it was didn’t really matter). The idol may not exist anymore, but satan doesn’t change tactics much, he just adapts them to current times. Man is just as susceptible to the worship of Nebo today as in Babylon.
And that’s why some fight vigorously to defend an absurdity — they’re worshipers of Nebo, and a worse fate than hell is for them to admit their hallowed intellectualism and logic is really a house of cards, built on sand, as the tide comes in.
Motives, Actions, Results
COLIN: Prostitution and drugs are not libertarian ideals. But freedom is - which would include the freedom to chose both good and evil.
Let’s consider three concepts surrounding actions. You are motivated to do something, you act, and a certain result is obtained (pre-action, action, post-action).
Results (post-action) are God’s problem, so that’s all that needs to be said.
Motives and actions, however, are your responsibility (and under your control), and accountable to God. By allowing prostitution, your motive may be good (liberty), but your actions aren’t. And half right is totally wrong.
This repeatedly comes up by people equating motives and actions. They are different. If you have good intentions you can’t justify poor actions (gee, to solve world hunger, if we have enough abortions we’ll have less people, and the food can feed more). Good motive, poor action. (Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, for example, even though satire)
Similarly, you can have poor motives, but good actions. It doesn’t matter why a senator supports your law, as long as he votes for it — he could give his support due to a back room deal, but that has no effect on the inherit nature of the legislation as good or bad (that’s classic politics). Nobody cares in 20 years why a law was passed — we have to live with the action, not the motive; motive is irrelevant to politics (save that it causes action).
Actions differ from motives. Politics concerns itself with actions and results (motives only because they cause action), God deals with actions and motives (and handles the results Himself). For the Christian, it’s important to consider both actions and motives. For the politician, only actions impact society.
The “T” Word
Theocracy. A dirty word for many. Is that what Conservatism is about? Nope. Although certainly some desire that end, it’s not generally what is meant by government following Biblical principles.
But that leads to multiple people asking the same question:
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? … CHRIS: What scripture, do you suppose, tells us that secular governments are to enforce God’s laws in the way you prescribe?
The classic leading question — a question that by its nature reveals the bias of the person asking, along with the presumed response. It’s just as easy (and just as leading) to ask “What in the Bible prohibits moral laws?”. Pollsters spend considerable time (if you want actual results) forming questions which aren’t leading or biased.
The real question is “What does the Bible say about political philosophy?” — to which 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. (The Bible didn’t say I could have Fruit Loops for breakfast either, does that mean I can’t?).
For the remainder of this discussion, we’ll assume the Bible is silent, as the questioner states. In reality, considerable debate may exist on the issue, but a previous article implied this blog’s audience agrees on the point, so for the moment we’ll assume it to be true to avoid side debates.
There are other means to infer God’s intent when it’s not explicitly stated in the Bible, but we’ll table those as well as it won’t solve the conflict anyway as they’ll be seen differently in any event — this isn’t meant to be a course on Biblical interpretation.
The one area in the Bible where God Himself sets up a government (Israel) is a view into the mind of God. Libertarians dismiss this, of course, and the discussion has been covered ad nauseum elsewhere on this blog for anyone who’s interested.
Thus, this isn’t really an issue, and it’s a sidebar anyway, as what’s under discussion is a senator’s individual actions — how they decide how to vote on a bill, as stated:
COLIN: … you should be able to see that I am not proposing any official government action, but rather actions by individuals.
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?
Freedom
COLIN: freedom is - which would include the freedom to chose both good and evil.
What is freedom? Previous articles state “the bible has virtually nothing to say about political philosophy.” If true, we can’t use it to promote or deny political freedom or legal freedom. To do so is a logical error. Those concepts may or may not be correct, but if the view on the Bible and politics proves correct, the Bible can’t be used to argue either way.
If the questioner attempted to imply freedom to choose sin legally, it’s a logical error, as the Bible remains silent.
Freedom in the Bible is religious freedom — free to choose Jesus Christ or not (leaving the Calvinism argument aside for the moment). If the Bible remains silent on politics, no conclusions can be drawn about extrapolating that principle to what a government as an entity should do. To do so is a logical error.
Freedom in the religious sense is quite different from freedom in the legal sense. Once again, if the Bible doesn’t speak of political government, you can not apply the religious concept of freedom to legal freedom. To the point, the freedom to choose good and evil is an individual one, and does not necessarily imply a society must allow the choice, after all, the Bible says almost nothing about political philosophy, right?
God’s Law in Government
Another question:
For extra credit: why should sins such as drugs and prostitution be illegal, but sins such as lying, breaking the Sabbath and stumbling a brother not be punished by secular courts and police?
Lying is illegal in many areas — perjury, breech of contract, 10Q, etc.
Obviously the Sabbath doesn’t count for the Christian as it’s the Mosaic Law and the Christian isn’t bound by Mosaic Law (capital “L”).
Stumbling a brother is not definitive and impossible to make a legal distinction on. What stumbles someone may not someone else (for example, political discussion.). So a consistent law can not be made — a precise definition of it is almost impossible — stumbling a brother is a Christian concept which just can’t be translated to law, much like defining pornography. “I’ll know it when I see it” doesn’t work in legal arenas.
Legal issues are precise and exact — the poor guy who writes his will stating to divide his inheritance between his sons (and he’s got 4) has our pity as he’s opened himself up to a huge problem. Legal concepts must be exact; defining some concepts (Christian or otherwise) proves almost impossible in a legal sense. If a concept can’t be made legally exact, you can’t legislate it.
But similar to the previous discussion on theocracy, the question can just as easily be, why shouldn’t drugs and prostitution be illegal? Since the Bible is silent on politics, it all depends on how you form the question — in essence you can form a leading question either way to fit your goal depending on which side of the issue you’re on.
Additionally, the question itself (from the Libertarian view) contradicts itself as well. It’s just as easy to ask why should sins like abortion be illegal, and sins like drugs and prostitution be legal. What Biblical proof exists? (Remember, the Bible says virtually nothing on political philosophy). It all depends on how you lead the question.
Obviously, we could go round and round with more examples, and accomplish nothing, so we’ll move on.
Government And Individuals
COLIN: I am suggesting that the biblical imperatives themselves preclude certain government actions such as murder, adultery, outlawing sin, etc..
If the Bible is silent on politics and government (”the bible has virtually nothing to say about political philosophy”), that statement is self-contradicting as there aren’t any Biblical imperatives precluding or promoting any government actions. The idea stems from injecting Libertarian philosophy into the Bible, again if the Bible is silent on politics you have no information for or against it and neither prohibition nor justification exists.
Two issues exist, actions by government as a whole, and actions by the individuals involved in government. They’re distinct (though in many ways the same, as the government can’t take action by itself, only by action of its members).
If the Bible is silent on politics, no information about the government as a whole can be deduced.
However, information on individuals the Bible speaks volumes on, and it’s this which should direct actions by people in government, and it’s this question which we shall now address.
How Should A Christian Senator Act?
If the Bible really doesn’t speak in political terms, no information prohibiting or promoting actions by the government can be known. However, actions by individuals the Bible speaks volumes on. So how should a Christian act in government? The same as he would anywhere else? Or do special rules exist forcing a Christian to act differently in a governmental role as he would elsewhere? In that case, since the Bible is silent on politics, how do you determine such rules? And why?This all sounds moot, as it appears there’s agreement on the principle:
COLIN: I think Christians should run their government by biblical principles, and I would too. It’s not unChristian to support a non-Christian government, unless that government is advocating sin.
It sounds like agreement has been reached. We’ve stated similar things in the past, so the more it appears agreement has been reached, the more puzzling the different outcome becomes.
We’ll definitely disagree on the advocating sin part (as Libertarianism advocates sin, thus it’s disqualified — which Libertarians will certainly disagree on and has been covered ad nauseam).
A Christian should act the same in a governmental role as he would in any other. If you wouldn’t support prostitution in one context, you shouldn’t support it in your role in government either. Libertarians have de-facto separated Christian conduct into governmental and other areas, even while denying so. Why support prostitution in one area, and not in others? If Christians in government are bound by Biblical morality, this must not be.
The Problem Revisited
So if the Bible is silent on politics (as other articles state), and Christians should follow Biblical morality (also as previously stated), the question becomes how should a senator determine how to vote on proposed laws? What criteria should be used? Libertarian philosophy or God’s law? You can’t do both, as they contradict (it should be obvious, but Libertarianism supports prostitution, God doesn’t. You can’t do both, no matter how much verbal twister you play).
COLIN: I think Christians should run their government by biblical principles, and I would too … I would argue that Christians must set up everything they do by biblical principles and morality, including government.
The apparent agreement would lead to a belief the outcome would be the same — and you would be quite wrong. Let’s consider a specific example. Abortion and prostitution are against God’s law (let’s assume both are true, although some might disagree). You thus have the following:
Conservative Christian View:
Abortion -> God’s law prohibits -> law against accepted
Prostitution -> God’s law prohibits -> law against accepted
Libertarian Christian View:
Abortion -> God’s law prohibits -> law against accepted
Prostitution -> God’s law prohibits -> law against rejected
Huh?
If agreement on doctrine exists (God’s law supreme, we should follow it always, and so on), how does the difference creep in? Two systems with the same input, and the same program must yield the same results (to use a computer model). Obviously, something differs. What is it? Something we’ll call …
The Libertarian Filter
Whatever Biblical interpretation differences exist can’t explain the radically different outcome. We’ve followed Libertarians for a long time, and normally they’re just a crazy bunch of hippies looking for a legal reason to use drugs, thus the differences are easy to spot.
The working theory is something we’ll call The Libertarian Filter , or LF for short (for lack of a better term).
It’s best to go back to our simple example.
Conservative Christian View:
Abortion -> God’s law prohibits -> law against accepted
Prostitution -> God’s law prohibits -> law against accepted
Libertarian Christian View:
Abortion -> God’s law prohibits -> law against accepted
Prostitution -> God’s law prohibits -> law against rejected
But the Libertarian view doesn’t work that way (if it did, it would agree with the Conservative view); it really works like this:
Libertarian Christian View:
Abortion -> God’s law prohibits -> LF -> law against accepted
Prostitution -> God’s law prohibits -> LF -> law against rejected
Two systems with the same input, and the same program, must yield the same output. Something differs, the LF. Allow another Libertarian to weigh in:
AC: 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.
JEW: Yep, I think you got it.
Thus the LF overrules God’s law and supercedes it. Again, something Conservatives soundly reject.
Justification for the Libertarian Filter
An inherit contradiction exists for the Christian in supporting some laws regarding Biblical morality (abortion), and actively opposing others (prostitution). The Libertarian makes arguments to defend the practice, but in doing so uses Libertarian philosophy to do so (moral laws bad, protection of innocent good) — thus using what they’re trying to prove in their proof — another logical error (see Richard Feynman’s discussion of license plates for more in the classic “Feynman Lectures on Physics”).
If God says it’s bad, it’s bad. Why would God want a promotion of what he’s called bad? Not always, but sometimes. If true, where are the rules God provides explaining when it’s acceptable and not acceptable? As already stated:
You can avoid this problem if you make government and the Bible completely separate (as another Libertarian has said [I think Jew, but can’t find the quote right now]), but you’ve got big problems trying to Biblically justify some government action when it agrees with your Libertarian philosophy, yet ignore the Bible when it doesn’t.
Enough of the discussion on the contradiction — it’s not the interesting part anyway and wide disagreement will occur which shall never be reconciled. The interesting part is what explains the difference?
Since the Bible doesn’t speak of political systems (according to a previous article), the only reason for the difference is a secular reason — the LF. The LF is inserted between God’s law, and the actions of the person. A Biblical reason can’t exist, if the Bible doesn’t speak of politics (”As has been stated several times by multiple members of this blog, the bible has virtually nothing to say about political philosophy … God doesn’t really want Christians thinking politically”).
So, what explains the difference?
If agreement exists on Biblical values, but politics differ (Conservatism vs. Libertarianism), we have a clue the theory may be correct. The same input, with the same program, must yield the same output. As the output is different, something is different, the LF.
COLIN: A senator or president need not approve everything he legalizes
If a proposed law contradicts God’s law, it’s thumbs down. Voting for things you don’t believe in is the classic politician stance — I’ll vote for your bag of poop if you’ll vote for mine (and helps create the current mess, but that’s another topic entirely). If it’s bad, why support it? The Libertarian position is we can be against it, but still legalize it. Conservatives don’t (or shouldn’t) vote for things not approved.
Thus the Libertarian Filter kicks in, overriding the normal outcome.
Problems with the theory
Some say it doesn’t exist.
COLIN: Wherever a contradiction exists in any non-biblical philosophy, the bible must always win out … Clearly that means I think Christians should run their government by biblical principles, and I would too.
While Mr. Martens (AKA Jew) implies it does:
AC: 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.
JEW: Yep, I think you got it.
As well as others on occasion:
Prostitution and drugs are not libertarian ideals. But freedom is - which would include the freedom to chose both good and evil …A senator or president need not approve everything he legalizes …
We’ve dealt with freedom already — the religious concept can not necessarily be extrapolated to political (at least by using the Bible. Other reasons may exist, but we’re focused on the Christian perspective).
The problem? When asked directly, Kenneth’s idea is disavowed:
COLIN: I would argue the exact opposite of Jew, actually. And this is why my question to you is so important. I would argue that Christians must set up everything they do by biblical principles and morality, including government.
So, does he hold to the LF? Sometimes, sometimes not. He says God’s law is absolute, but perhaps subtly applies the LF without knowing it.
If it’s not the LF, we’re back to some doctrinal position difference — is the Bible absolute? Is God’s law absolute? Is it supreme? Is the Bible inerrant? Is it relevant for today? Is it to be followed always to the best of your ability?
Different people hold different views, and this would be the first place to look. Many don’t hold to the basic tenets of Christianity (Bible inerrancy, etc). If a “Christian” Libertarian rejects foundational Christian doctrine, that could explain the difference apart from the LF.
Why don’t two systems with the same input, and the same program, yield the same output? They must, unless they’re different. Since the inputs are the same, and it appears the program is the same (yet don’t yield the same output), we’ve arrived at the LF.
At least in Kenneth Martens’ case, it appears to be correct. Others disavow it, yet appear to follow it.
Methodology
We’re generally not interested in endless debate, but giving information. If someone doesn’t agree, we’ll still sleep fine. If you’re the type who likes to argue endlessly, don’t be surprised when we drop out of the discussion. Frankly, we’ve got better things to do.
We provide information, what you choose to do with it is up to you, and what you’re responsible for (of course, if disagreement exists, at most one view is correct). If you don’t agree, fine. What would be more interesting comes from explaining why and where two systems with same input, same program, yield different outputs. From whence cometh the difference?
Conclusion
First, if you’ve read this far, congratulations. We apologize for the failure of Lincoln-style brevity, but we actually covered several related topics all at once (in general, the longer the response, the more hand-waving it contains — in this case we attempted to cover multiple topics, each in brief).
COLIN: However, libertarianism (not all of it by any stretch, but some of it) is easily permissible within biblical mandates.
Conservatism fits far better than Libertarianism. The negatives of Libertarianism make it wholly unacceptable for Conservatives. Libertarian philosophy does contain a few good ideas, but not enough, and the negatives far outweigh the positives. Conservatism is a much better fit for the Christian.
The LF may or may not be correct (it’s just a working theory at this point, and we may throw it out if we find something better), but it most definitely does explain the problem. For right now, it doesn’t matter if anyone agrees or not, it explains the contradiction.
Thanks for writing such a thorough article (and for publishing it here!). I apologise if my response is briefer than I’d like (and subsequent responses might be delayed). Because of circumstances in real life, I am strictly limited with time. But here we go:
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:
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.
“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.
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.
Colin wrote:
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.
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.
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.”
John Locke explained it best in “A Letter Concerning Tolerance”. It is imposible to legislate the contents of someone’s heart. Forcing someone to obey religious dictates will not bring anyone closer to a heaven that requires sincere dedication.
CC, I think we are in agreement with what God’s Word says about moral questions. And we might as well be in agreement that God’s standard of conduct as given to the Israelites through Moses was impossible to follow (Acts 15:10; Romans 8:3). Christians are not under that Law but grace (Romans 6:14,15; Romans 10:4; Galatians 5:4). So if we use a blanket term like “God’s law”, what does that mean really? We have to have context. Are we talking Old Testament Mosaic Law or what? Certainly you’re not talking about the commandment of love that Jesus gave.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Bingo.
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.
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.
Isn’t “out of scope” the job of SCOTUS? (Seriously)
Answer from the article in bold …
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.
Constitutional Conservative wrote:
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.
“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.”
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.
“Thus, when a Libertarian states Government can’t legislate morality, they’re really promoting anarchy — if moral laws can’t be made, no laws can be made, as they’re all some idea of right and wrong.”
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.
Suppose somewhere they passed a law that if you see an escaped slave you must report him to the police so he can be caught and hanged. Such a law would be IMMORAL and one could not in good conscience obey it. So not all law is necessarily moral.
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.
CC, I find it frustrating that you clearly do not understand the nature of my position. It would be one thing if I believed you understood my position and disagreed with it, like others do. We can move to a discussion that way. But you do not.
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.
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.
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…
To Mr. Majestic — As to morality, it’s just right and wrong. EVERY legality is someones idea of right and wrong. How many times has a Libertarian said “Government can’t legislate morality”? But that’s all government *can* legislate. Morals is just right and wrong. You can’t drive 90mph because *someone* thought it was bad and legislated it. Whether it’s really good or bad is debatable, but it was a moral judgment (ie, someone thought it was bad).
So what’s the Libertarian principle we’ve missed? *SOME* legislative morality is acceptable? None? Or whose? Here’s your answer it appears:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m excited to see an opposing viewpoint posted up on the blog. It speaks volumes about the administrators of ZFT that opposing arguments are not just tolerated, but “promoted”.
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.
Yeah, I agree with gurr8 in that I didn’t think the article really understood Libertarianism. That would be necessary for any substantive debate. I generally don’t think its profitable to debate anyone that really doesn’t believe what they are debating or doesn’t understand what they are debating against. It really just doesn’t work. When someone writes an article, I assume (unless explicitly stated) that the article in some way represents the author’s true opinions. I understand the value of arguing the other side when you’re on the fence about something, or when you want to bring balance to a discussion, but that’s totally different.
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.
I don’t know. Constitutional Conservative made a number of good points even if his article isn’t perfect. (And it’s not like our pro-libertarian articles are perfect either.) If you don’t like his article maybe one of you would like to write a better article against libertarianism. It could be a good intellectual exercise.
“I don’t know. Constitutional Conservative made a number of good points even if his article isn’t perfect.”
What did you think the good points were?
It’s a long article so I won’t go through point by point, but the Motives, Actions, and Results section is good. A Christian must examine both his motives and his actions to make sure they are in line with God. Additionally, it’s quite true that when you’re passing laws, the motives of the legislators who are voting for the laws is not important. The meaning and impact of the law is independent of the motivations of the legislators who vote for it. That’s why (editorializing now) it’s OK to work with people whose motives are different than yours but who support the same short-term goal.
Article begs the question by assuming its conclusions. In stating that one must either support all behavior or forcibly ban it, the author assumes his accuracy and for the rest of the article fails to support the premise. Unless we assume that all sins must be prevented by government through the use of force, we are allowing some sins to exist. Does allowing someone to lie without forcibly punishing them constitute agreement with dishonesty? Is it wrong to oppose execution for doing good deeds with impure motives?
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.
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.)
Atanamis, You have succinctly expressed in a few paragraphs what I had been attempting to do over the course of several lengthy comments. Bravo! I agree entirely with your position and statements.
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.
“I just find it frustrating that someone would bullheadedly attempt to refute a position which they have firmly refused to understand.”
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”.
What are your thoughts about the concept of Distributism?
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.”
Mike, I would say that is socialism.
OK.
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
First off remember Jesus lived under Roman sovereignty and chose not to break it. Remember he was God Incarnate and was perfectly powerful enough to overthrow Roman rule and institute a Christian kingdom.
Instead, however, he told his followers to pay taxes, “render under Caeser”, and to “not be of this world”. John the Revelator further expounds that God problaims that all the governments of the earth will belong to Satan when the judgement comes.
His teachings are rather explicit in not being applied to this world, but to be of utility in the next. Christians are supposed to follow Christ not for worldly affect, but so that when this wretched sinful world is consumed by the divine flame they will be retrieved and the wicked left behind.