Tag Archive for libertarians at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'libertarians'

Palin Makes Election McCain’s to Lose

Published by Colin September 1, 2008 in Politics. 233 Comments

I need to first disclose that I have no interest in John McCain versus Barack Obama. Both of them would be terrible in my opinion. But I would like to take a moment away from my usual idealistic critique of politics and actually look at the “politics” of politics.

Before Sarah Palin, I think McCain loses the election by seven points - even with the terrible decision Obama made by selecting Joe Biden. However, there are three interest groups that McCain needs in order to win the election:

Christians
Women
Republitarians (libertarian leaning republicans)

John McCain’s strategy, up until this point, has generally cheesed off these groups. He is not a social conservative, and has in fact, actively opposed many social conservative measures. McCain tends to take positions that women do not favour (environment, education, healthcare). Lastly, McCain really ticks of libertarians as his legislation has done tremendous damage to the ability of third parties to advertise, fundraise and receive more equitable election treatment.

But Palin is a shout-out to these groups, especially Christians and libertarians. She is firmly pro-life and a friend of libertarians and even some Ron Paul supporters. Near the peak of Paul’s popularity in the primaries, many supporters were calling for him to seek out Palin as his vice president.

There is a decent block of ex-Clinton supporters who have considered voting for McCain. I think most of these people are insane, because the only reason why they seem to be so opposed to Obama is because he is a male. For those nutcases, McCain just might have locked up their votes.

Finally, the last reason Palin was an excellent choice is at the top of this article. With a significant amount of voters being complete and utter morons, having a MILF on your ticket is going to get you quite a few votes. Perhaps this is finally the year that the college-age voting bracket breaks 50%.

McCain has now put himself in a position to win this election - in fact, I expect that it is his to lose. Obama is demonstrating more and more everyday that he has absolutely no desire to stick to his major sales point of change in Washington. If these trends continue, expect to see another four years of republican rule in the White House.

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.

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

Published by Colin July 14, 2008 in Essays and Politics. 57 Comments

Is libertarian foreign policy isolationist? / You libertarians are a bunch of head-in-the-sand isolationists!
Libertarians are broadly defined as people that hold to the non-aggression principle, which is basically paraphrased:

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (’aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory (Murray Rothbard).

How does this kind of worldview translate to foreign policy? It definitely doesn’t automatically mean isolationism - but it could. So some libertarians can be isolationists (at least partly), but most hold to a defence-oriented foreign policy. That is, we do not attack any country unless it presents an imminent, specific and definable threat. Thus, World War II is justifiable to many libertarians, as may be the invasion of Afghanistan - however, preemptive wars such as Vietnam, Iraq or the Spanish-American War are typically frowned upon.

Wars to support alliances would also be unacceptable to libertarians. We broadly support alliances via trade and commerce, but not political alliances which tie us to the internal and external conflicts of others. World War I is an excellent example of the disasters of such alliances.

But more important to this distinction, is actually looking at what defines isolationism. There are two general points required for isolationism:

non-aggressive, or non-interventionist foreign policy
protectionism of the economy, culture, language, etc…

Libertarians abhor the second point. We would like to see trade with as many people as possible. We want our cultures to mingle and share with one another. We are generally more internationalist - supporting all kinds of diplomacy and cooperation with other nations.

The economic restrictions of isolationism (and currently favored by both the left and right), are an anathema to libertarians who support free-markets and the rights of individuals (regardless of their nationality) to voluntarily trade with one another. For example, many libertarians are for opening borders and loosening immigration controls - while many isolationist-oriented republicans want immigrant-hiring employers regulated, a border-fence and deportation of illegal immigrants.

So it is possible that isolationism and libertarianism can coincide briefly, but for the most part, these two ideas - especially when examined logically - are mutually exclusive.

Why I Am Not An Anarchist

Published by Kenneth Martens June 25, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 37 Comments

This essay responds to the idea that if small government is good, then no government is better.

Two Kinds of Libertarians
If a small government is good, no government at all must be better, right? Some libertarians agree, some don’t. That point of disagreement defines the two basic forms of libertarianism.

Anarchist libertarians believe true liberty can only be achieved if there is no government at all. Any form of government is oppressive.
Minarchist libertarians believe that a government is necessary for liberty. The ideal government is not oppressive.

Or to put it more succinctly:

Anarchy = no government
Minarchy = minimal government

Governments Abuse Power
The main problem with governments is that they can use their power to oppress the public and violate the rights of the people. At first glance that makes anarchism appealing. As one anarchist put it, how can minarchists trust “the minimal, libertarian state to restrain itself, and to refrain from using its own powers” to coerce and oppress the public? (The Minarchist’s Dilemma) There’s nothing to stop the government from using its power for evil. The only way to prevent that is to eliminate the government completely.

Ayn Rand offers a succinct explanation of why anarchy cannot and does not work.

[A] society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

“The Nature of Government” (PDF document)

I’m a Minarchist
I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. There are practical reasons for my belief. E.g., I don’t think anarchism is workable in a fallen world filled with sinful people. It devolves into might-makes-right. Even Ayn Rand, a hostile critic of religion, recognizes that fact. But for now I want to focus on biblical reasons to support a minarchy. According to Romans 13, God establishes earthly governments and expects Christians to submit to them in obedience to God. Submitting is not optional for Christians.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1).

God’s Purpose for Government
OK then, submitting to the government is biblical. Does the Bible say that men must be governed, though? Is it acceptable to submit to the authorities that exist while also advocating their abolition? I believe not. The reason is related to the purpose of government. Let’s look at Romans again, to see the purpose of government.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience (Romans 13:3-5) [Emphasis added].

The Bible is Not About Political Philosophy
The God-ordained purpose of government is to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” God doesn’t tell us to obey the government on a whim; we must obey the government because it is God’s instrument of justice on Earth. The precise form of government isn’t detailed in the Scriptures, but the qualities of that government are listed: a government acceptable to God is one that punishes evildoers and holds no terror for those who do right. There is no biblical support for the idea that God’s purposes (i.e., punishing evildoers) can be achieved without a government.

The Bible isn’t a treatise on political philosophy. It doesn’t discuss the merits of republics or kingdoms or dictatorships; it doesn’t list the virtues of democracies. All the Bible tells us is that governments are established by God for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers. As a Christian, I can only support governments that achieve those biblical objectives. As a citizen and a rational, thinking human being, I believe a minarchy is the best kind of government to fully achieve God’s stated purposes for government.

To summarize:

I am not an anarchist. I believe God has established earthly governments for a purpose.
I am a minarchist because I believe a minarchy best fits the purposes of government laid out in Romans 13.

Are Anarchists Heretics?
This doesn’t mean that anarchy is heresy. I believe you can read the Bible and come away with an understanding that anarchy is compatible with God’s character and with biblical values. For example, you might look to the period of judges and see that God preferred Israel as a nation without a national government. God permitted Israel to have a king, but he warned them of the dire consequences. I don’t believe this implies that anarchy is God’s preferred system of government, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion.

So no, anarchy is not heresy. I believe minarchy is a more reasonable understanding of the Bible, but good Bible-believing Christians can be anarchists too.

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