Tag Archive for liberals at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'liberals'

Libertarianism, Christianity and Foreign Policy Q&A - Part III

Published by Colin July 17, 2008 in General. 19 Comments

Over the past year, especially because of the effect of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, many honest questions (and many baseless accusations) have been flying around about libertarianism, foreign policy and Christianity. I wanted to take the time to answer a few of these questions from my own perspective.

The past two instalments explained why libertarian foreign policy is neither right wing or left wing. But that isn’t good enough - is it biblically compatible?

Is libertarian foreign policy biblical? / I’m all for leaving places like Iraq, but we broke it so we bought it. It would be unChristian of us not to be using our military to save the world from evil and promote democracy and freedom!

As has been stated several times by multiple members of this blog, the bible has virtually nothing to say about political philosophy. This is not a big “oopsie” by God - he clearly was very deliberate about what he wanted in there.

However, the bible is chalk-full of moral philosophy and higher principles. As for me, I believe this is because God doesn’t really want Christians thinking politically. What I mean by that is, that God wants us to be consistent, principled, moral people - like Christ - not wishy-washy consequentialists like Saul or Aaron. He doesn’t want us ignorant about the means we use to achieve our ends.

Libertarian foreign policy is defensive-only. It does not invade, aggress, occupy, challenge, bully, provoke, obtain vengeance or pursue lust for resources. Libertarian foreign policy does allow individuals, families and (if you think they are legitimate) states to protect their property and lives.

This is obviously very compatible with biblical morality, where we are given almost the exact same commands. Although libertarian foreign policy may not be radical enough! The bible also argues that we should be so adverse to violence that we allow ourselves to suffer, and to turn the other cheek. While this is an important argument, it is probably best to have it another day as it is quite a long rabbit trail.

Many Christians justify prolonged nation-building wars and occupations (such as Iraq) by clichés and popular proverbs such as:

We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don’t pick something off the shelf I can’t afford to buy.

Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It’s our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. Because something is a stake.

It is true that if you break someone’s property, you need to pay for it. However, it hardly follows that if you destroy someone’s infrastructure, kill tens of thousands of people, blow up their cultural and historical relics and induce a civil war by these actions you must continue to do so. The Christian thing to do would be to repent, that is to change your ways, and stop killing, wounding and destroying.

This is the kind of compromise that Christians have made to try and serve both country and God - but these two are often mutually exclusive:

…for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God (James 1:20 NKJV).

The moral imperatives of the bible are not removed from Christians when they put on a uniform. If I went over to another country on my own, decided I wanted something, and killed the people who owned it - would I not be a murderer? Just because I have a flag behind me, and a uniform on does not change this. In the same way, if I defended by house from a robber, I would be justified - as would a group of people from an invading foreign army. Similarly, the bible doesn’t change just because a Christian is acting on behalf of a government:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him (Acts 10:34-35 NKJV).

Eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honour, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honour, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God (Romans 2:7-11 NKJV).

A Christian should view foreigners and strangers with hospitality and compassion. Obviously if one of them tries to injure, kill or steal from you - you can defend yourself. But only then. Christianity is not a call to global paranoia - where every tanned-skinned person from the middle east is out to blow us up. Even if they are - as Christians, it is not our job to join a crusade against those who have not directly harmed us. We are not going to change these people by warring with them, but by evangelizing them. Again, the wise James:

Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:1-4 NKJV).

A Christian view of foreigners and conflict is radically opposed to a secular view - especially to current foreign policy. This is the main reason why libertarian foreign policy and Christianity are compatible - libertarianism proclaims the freedom of men to practice what they will by voluntary consent. It allows and even encourages a Christian view of human relations.

Libertarianism, Christianity and Foreign Policy Q&A - Part II

Published by Colin July 15, 2008 in Religion, Politics and Philosophy. 0 Comments

Yesterday, I dealt with a question that presumed libertarian foreign policy is too right-wing (isolationist). Ironically, we get criticized from the other side too.

Is libertarian foreign policy in line with the Democrats or even pacifism? / You libertarians are just like those treasonous anti-war weenie liberals! Go USA!
Just like with isolationism, it is possible to be a libertarian and a pacifist - but it is not required, or even a mainstream view in libertarianism. Most libertarians take the non-aggression principle to mean that it is perfectly legitimate for free people’s to defend themselves, even with deadly force, against aggressions initiated against their person or property. In fact, libertarians have quite a reputation as gun-nuts and vigilantes.

However, most people get libertarians and democrats confused on foreign policy because both groups have been vocally opposed to the current invasion of Iraq. However, their reasons are radically different and stem from a completely different set of principles.

Well, maybe that is a bit misleading - Democrats generally have no principles. They usually just look across the aisle and see what Republicans do and try and support the opposite. In fact, democrats generally support wars and nation building - just look at the last administration.

Libertarians have a few different ways to determine if a war is defensive or not. There needs to be a specific threat or aggression that has taken place. None of this preemptive war - which presumes guilt until proven innocent (after a bunch of people are killed of course - sorry about that). There needs to be a defined enemy (the one who did the specific aggression) and also conditions for victory.

A libertarian war would also not require forced taxation or conscription to wage it - the threat would be so obvious that people would voluntarily defend themselves. Consider a brief analogy:

My neighbour John claims that my other neighbour Jack ransacked my house and stole my TV. He showed me his video surveillance and it is clear that Jack did this. Moreover, he heard Jack talking about how he was going to begin stealing other TV’s in the neighbourhood. I am going to go and get my TV back, by george.

But what if my TV is not stolen, and John just tells me he has a” gut feeling” that Jack is going to steal it. John tells me that Jack looks like a shady character, and that we should TP his house and key his car to make sure he doesn’t mess with us. John also makes some of the neighbour kids stand around Jack’s house to prevent him from going to the grocery store.

Democrats and republicans basically have very few rules about what justifies a war. Both parties are making threats to Iran simply because they might, possibly, in the future, in theory, maybe one day, thought about, for a few seconds enriching uranium that could be used for weapons, which also someday might be used against Israel. We’re literally going to blockade Iran, preparing to starve their people and commit an act of war against them when they have done nothing to us.

The libertarian response to Iran’s existence, would be the same as any neighbour. We’d trade with them culturally and economically if it benefits us. And otherwise leave them alone and expect them to leave us alone. Libertarians reject the idea that we must presume guilt on others just because it is easier or more convenient.

I suspect if this country ever were credibly threatened or attacked, the libertarians with their guns and hyperactive love of freedom, would be the first ones to fire shots back.

The Death of Left and Right

Published by Colin July 2, 2008 in Essays and Politics. 6 Comments

It has been a tough thing this election cycle, especially with the beacon of light which was the Ron Paul movement, to admit defeat. Argument after argument I have engaged, especially with “conservatives” has been predicated on the hope that the new statist conservative movement is a fad, and that there is still a remnant of “old school” conservatives in the mainstream GOP. I think it is time to admit defeat. The Left died some time ago in this country, and now the Right has joined them in the grave.

It was once said that Left and Right in America looked something like this:

Right - Social and fiscal conservatives. Philosophically opposed to collectivism, big government and taxes. Fiscally responsible, favouring balanced budgets and looking to cut taxes and spending. Supporting civil rights. Promoting a moral society. Supporting private and family education. Seeing the family as the foundation of a moral society. Strong on defence but sceptical of empire and conflicts that could damage trade. Supporting immigration and freer borders.

Left - Social and Fiscal liberals. Generally favour collectivism to individualism. Bigger government but restrained by laws and free and fair elections. Fiscal investments in welfare, infrastructure and military. Supporting civil rights, especially privacy. Sceptical of police and military for uses other than peacekeeping and defence. Generally more states-rights.

In name, the major parties still would claim to hold to these principles. But when Mitt Romney argues that government-mandated healthcare is a “market solution” and Mike Huckabee claims that we need to “stop spending,” but should support increased NASA funding, farm subsidies and federal education spending - we clearly have double-speak of Orwellian proportions.

Bob Barr, former conservative congressman, currently running for president as a Libertarian, explains exactly when it was that conservatism died:

I remember the precise moment. I was elected to Congress in 1994 with the Republican Revolution, and four years later we were in one of the House Republican caucuses, just before the ‘98 election, and the leadership came in and said very clearly, “We’ve got an election coming up. Anybody here who has a problem in their district, sit down with Representative Kasich or Armey and tell them what you need to have in this year’s budget to win your election.” And they might as well have had a sign flashing in the background that said “business as usual.” We were no longer serious about reining in government. And now McCain goes out and talks about doing away with earmarks, and the public applauds. But in one year, you could simply freeze spending and save ten times as much. They want to give the appearance of tackling the issue, but not really. It’s part of the same shell game they use cycle after cycle.

The left and right as a valid barometer of political spectrum has now vanished. There is now little that distinguishes someone like John McCain from Barack Obama. Both are for continuing the war in Iraq. Both are gung-ho about possible expansion. Neither would fix the PATRIOT act. Neither would fix NCLB. Both seem to want increased border restrictions. Neither will cut spending. Both want statist solutions to global warming. Both are opposed to free markets. Neither of them support individual liberty. And it seems neither have read the constitution in a while.

Again, Barr speaks eloquently to the topic:

[The presidency is] the same establishment, the same power-hungry entity, whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat… Every administration that comes in takes the powers that it inherits from its predecessor as a floor, not a ceiling. So whether it’s McCain or Obama, they’ll inherit the powers of the Bush administration.

I propose that there is now only one spectrum that matters - it’s vertical rather than horizontal. Power and authority are on the top; freedom and liberty are on the bottom. The question is no longer whether an official considers himself left or right, but authoritarian or libertarian. Moderates should start ignoring the typical labels and buzzwords of each side and look at the substance of proposals to see whether they contribute to an authoritarian society, or a free and open one.

With today’s conservatives supporting all manners of interventions, from universal healthcare to military empire building, it’s time to face the facts. Stop appealing to Republicans with the old conservative arguments - you are arguing with a party of corpses.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Oct
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30

Zeal For Truth