Let me start off by saying this; People may have similar goals for vastly disimilar reasons. People can cooperate towards an end even when the accomplishment or implementation of that end may divide them. Great things can be accomplished by people who don't see eye to eye on everything.
I also need to put out there that as a Christian, and a self-proclaimed libertarian, I feel sometimes that I tread between two camps. I wrote a book about the 2012 Ron Paul campaign, and for that, on occassion some Christians have told me that I have become unnecessarily conerned and entangled with the affairs of this world. That's one side of the aisle. On the other side of the aisle are people who are politically interested and have been very kind regarding my politcial cartoons and my writings, but have little interest in my Saviour. Those people want to know why I'm always blathering on about the Bible.
I am in favor of polital liberty and economic liberty, but real liberty is only available through the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and his death on the cross. A man in a Soviet gulag who knows Jesus is freer than any American who doesn't. So many in the liberty movement care nothing about the liberty of the soul, and so many Christians care little about politics or economics other than to reassure themselves that the GOP has their best interests at heart. Once again, I feel I walk between two camps.
Several years back when I was still doing a great deal of self-examination as to what I believed and why, I began writing some pieces for a libertarian website. The pieces were very well received, but when my Biblical worldview began to reveal itself, I was ostracized by the other contributors. That particular group saw allegiance to anything higher than themselves as a type of self-imposed tyranny. When Jerry Falwell passed away this group rejoiced, calling him a 'statist'. I warned them that, though Falwell and I had vast differences of opinion, evangelical Christians were not the ideological enemy. I said that the liberty position could be explained. It's a reasonable position for reasonable people, but if evangelicals felt that the liberty movement was hostile towards them, then the larger message is lost and the establishment GOP wins. I stand by that sentiment, and point to Ron Paul's success among church folks as proof that the two camps aren't as far apart as some would have you believe.
People support liberty for a variety of reasons, some intensly personal, which is exactly the sort of thing you would expect from a group of individuals. We don't need to agree on the reasons to agree on the goal. I am commanded by scripture to preach the gospel and one of my reasons for supporting liberty is that a free society provides the optimum environment to do just that. Were I a subject in North Korea and a Christian, I would be under the same commandment, but with much less liberty to accomplish it. I therefore strive for a politcal climate that affords me the least state intrusion, and occassionally lend my writing talents or my drawing talents to that end. If that makes me a compromiser to one group, and a Bible thumper to the other group, well I suppose that's just too bad.
I am free after all, aren't I?
9 comments:
I'm starting to get the feeling that a lot of those really excited about Libertarianism think that Libertarianism is equivalent to anarchy. I don't know how you feel about that, but I don't really consider that to be correct. It worries me. Anarchy only serves thugs and unless you really believe that 100% of people will always respect others' property and person just because they're libertarian, who gets appointed to decide the guilt or innocence of these people and wouldn't that be considered government?
Sure. If you are going to respect property rights, you have to have some sort of arbitrating body to enforce it. I don't know of any historical exampes of a scociety that didn't have that. And anarchy (defined as the complete absence of any governing authority) doesn't seem to ever last very long in reality; somebody always winds up in charge. Its usually the monkey with the biggest stick.
If I was to try to put a label on what I am, I'm somewhere between a minarchist and a Constitutionalist
I got into it with some very loose cannons the other day online on that very topic. Anarchy always leads to militant dictatorship. It's inevitable. I think Libertarianism is a good, solid philosophy of government. I don't want to see it overrun by a bunch of lunatics that think the law is all about them and what they want right now.
I encourage you to read Murray Rothbard - His book "For a New Liberty" in particular. If for no other reason than to better understand the reasoning and arguments of anarcho-libertarians rather than just giving knee-jerk responses to what you think they're all about.
"The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, “Limit yourself”; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." -- Murray Rothbard
Well Andrew I'd like to think I'm fairly well-versed in anarcho-lib literature, and I'd like to think I wasn't exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction but rather expressing a different point of view based on my higher allegiance to scripture.
I've read a ton of Rothbard, although I'm not sure if I've read the specific work you cited. I am familair with his case for a stateless society, I just suspect that it too would be a noble experiment that failed. To support my hypothesis, I look to the complete lack of any historical examples of such a society existing. If you know of any, I would love to hear about it.
Sorry, I should've made it clear I was responding to Naysayer.
But I don't put much stock in utilitarian arguments when they stand in opposition to moral arguments. But I think history is on the side of the anarchist's pessimistic view of the state and its natural course, and also the unlikelihood that an over-bloated state would reverse course.
https://mises.org/community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2008/10/09/avoiding-the-argument-from-history-and-normality.aspx
Andrew, the Bible believer shares your pessimism regarding the state, and I agree with you that, short of some sort of revolution, the state will continue to grow. I wish I had dr. Paul's optimism.
But the attitude I'm obligated to have towards the state is different than that of a non-beleiver. I think that's a huge chasm of misunderstanding between the two groups. I have seen libertarians that present themselves as the gold standard of someone commited to liberty, and anyone that fails to measure up is somehow a statist. As much as I can appreciate the need for ideological purity, I think that approach does more harm than good.
As far as the historical argument goes, please don't misunderstand me. A historical precedent isn't a requirement for me, after all, at the time of the American Revolution, America was a unique ideal in history. But when it comes to persuading people, it woudl be nice to be able to say 'look how well this idea worked back then!' And unfortunately, with a stateless society, all it takes is one monkey with a big stick to put himself in charge and ruin the whole picnic.
I have realized, unfortunately, that I will probably never be 'pure' enough for either group. Oh well.
And all the people said, Amen, and praised the Lord. Hallelujah to the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Light of the World!
The Bible defines three institutions - the family, the church and the civil magistrate - each with their own clearly defined roles. It is only because the church (and the family) have allowed the state (civil magistrate) to usurp their roles that we are in this mess. The civil magistrate is charged with punishing evil doers and defending against INVADERS - sounds pretty minarchist to me. Of course the list of evil doings is pretty minimal and prison is a purely pagan remedy. Most of our 'law and order' bretheren are severely misled.
Post a Comment