"My point is, if another country does to us what we do to others, we’re not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule – in foreign policy. Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want to have them do to us" -Ron Paul

The war-crazed conservatives in the crowd at one of the Republican presidential debates recently held in South Carolina booed and jeered when Ron Paul called for a golden rule in U.S. foreign policy. "We endlessly bomb these other countries and then we wonder why they get upset with us?" added Dr. Paul.

Naturally, the bloodthirsty warmongers at Frontpagemag.com consider Paul’s foreign policy to be absurd, dangerous, and clueless.

But just for a minute, let’s suppose a few things –

Suppose that a presidential candidate in another country said that the U.S. president needs to be taken off this planet. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that a presidential candidate in another country said that the U.S. president would go to hell if he died. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country said that the U.S. president needed to step down. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country forbade its citizens from traveling to the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country imposed sanctions on the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country had a secret program to develop nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country insisted that it had the right to build over 1,000 military bases in foreign countries. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country insisted that it had the right to station hundreds of thousands of troops on foreign soil. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country insisted that it had the right to build bases and station troops on American soil. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country spent more on defense than all the governments of the rest of the world combined. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country claimed it had the right to assassinate anyone in the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the intelligence agencies of another country insisted on infiltrating the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies to spy on them. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country spent a trillion dollars on defense, most of which was really for offense. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the government of another country said that the United States must get rid of its nuclear weapons. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country bombed American soil. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country invaded the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the military of another country occupied the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the president or secretary of state of another country said that the United States needed a regime change. How would Americans feel about it?

Suppose that the intelligence agencies of another country flew drone planes at will over the United States. How would Americans feel about it?

You know exactly how Americans would feel about these things. So why is it that foreigners aren’t expected to feel the same way?

It is U.S. foreign policy that is absurd, dangerous, and clueless. Ron Paul is the only sane voice that one will hear in the remaining Republican presidential debates.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on February 6, 2012.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Suppose We Followed the Golden Rule

There are several problems with these war prayers.

First, our "enemies" are praying the same war prayers. The citizens of other countries likewise ask God to bless and protect their troops. How is the Lord going to take care of both sides in the same way? American Christians just assume that God will not bless and protect the troops on the other side. American troops alone are dear to the heart of God.

Second, why is it that war prayers never seek to limit war? In his "Prayer before Battle" from "Some New Prayers" (CWE, 69:137), Erasmus gives us a model:

Almighty king of Sabaoth, that is, of armies, you determine both war and peace for the regions of the earth by means of your angels appointed for the task. You gave new heart and strength to the boy David, so that although he was small, without weapons, and unskilled in war he attacked and overthrew the giant Goliath with a sling. If we are fighting for a just cause, if we are forced to fight, I pray you, first, to turn the hearts of our enemies to the desire for peace, so that no Christian blood may be spilt upon the earth; or to spread the fear that men call panic; or to let victory be gained with the least shedding of blood and the smallest loss by those whose cause is more pleasing to you, so that the war may be quickly concluded and we may sing songs of triumph with one accord to you, who reign in all and above all. Amen.

Third, why are we only asked to pray war prayers? Why is it that we are never enjoined to pray prayers for peace and non-intervention? It is never suggested that we pray for impressionable young men and women to not be ensnared by military recruiters. It is never suggested that we pray that American troops are never sent to fight on foreign soil. It is never suggested that we pray for the safety of innocent civilians in the country the U.S. military is bombing. It is never suggested that we pray for the safety of foreign soldiers defending their homeland against attack. It is never suggested that we pray that the U.S. military only be used for genuinely defensive purposes. It is never suggested that we pray that the United States return to a noninterventionist foreign policy. It is never suggested that we pray for Congress to limit the president’s ability to wage war. Instead of all these things, we are told ad nauseam to "pray for the troops."

Fourth, war prayers are vague and presumptuous. What exactly does it mean when we are told to pray for the troops? Is it their safety and protection we are supposed to pray for? Should we pray that God keep them safe while they fly their helicopter gunships, pilot their bombers, and drive their tanks? This sounds like a strange thing to request since U.S. troops are the ones that did the invading of a sovereign country. Should we pray that God protect them while they drop bombs, throw grenades, launch missiles, fire mortars, and shoot bullets? This too sounds a bit odd since U.S. troops are the ones fighting an unnecessary, senseless, and immoral war. Would we ask God to keep someone safe while he was committing a crime? Then why should we ask God to protect U.S. soldiers who are committing a crime against the Iraqi people?

Fifth, and most significantly, war prayers are dishonest. Although not usually vocalized, implicit in every war prayer is a request for victory. It doesn’t matter what country U.S. troops are fighting in or the reason they are fighting. A war prayer for God to protect the troops is not just a prayer for the troops to be kept safe for some indefinite period; it is a prayer for the troops to be kept safe while they are vanquishing whatever group of people the U.S. government claims is the enemy. If war prayers were honest prayers they would openly and boldly call upon God to help U.S. forces crush the enemies of the United States.

Mark Twain (1835-1910) recognized the true nature of war prayers a hundred years ago. In his brief story called "The War Prayer," Twain tells of a church service held on the Sunday before "the battalions would leave for the front." A "war chapter" was read from the Old Testament, followed by a long prayer from the pastor that God would protect the "noble young soldiers," encourage them "in their patriotic work," and "bear them in His mighty hand." At the end of the prayer a mysterious stranger appears and addresses the congregation. He claims to be from the throne of God. After explaining that he was "commissioned of God" to put into words the other part of the pastor’s prayer that he and the congregation prayed in their hearts, the stranger uttered a real war prayer:

O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them – in spirit – we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

Although Twain dictated "The War Prayer" around 1904-1905, it was not published until 1923 in Albert Bigelow’s anthology of Paine’s writings called Europe and Elsewhere (Harper & Brothers, pp. 394-398). Twain is supposed to have remarked to a friend that only the dead were permitted to tell the truth.

But Mark Twain was not the only one to shed light on the true nature of war prayers. Back in 1845, the American Peace Society assembled a collection of sixty-four essays by a variety of authors and from a wide range of viewpoints on the subjects of war and peace. It is titled The Book of Peace: A Collection of Essays on War and Peace. Essay No. XLI is called "War-Prayers." After pointing out that pagans have their war prayers, and explaining how "our prayers, if made in accordance with the pacific principles of the gospel, would oppose war, and be discarded by all war-makers as hostile to their designs," the author puts forth a war prayer that honest chaplains should pray on the eve of battle:

O Lord of hosts, smile upon thy servants now marshaled before thee for the work of death. Breathe into them, O God of war, the spirit of their profession. Let them for the time forget thy prohibition of old, thou shalt not kill, and also those commands of thy gospel which bid them do good unto all men, to love even their enemies and turn the other cheek to the smiter. Thou knowest, Omniscient Father of all, this is no time for the application of such principles; and we pray thee to animate them with sentiments more appropriate to the awful duties of this hour, and thus prepare them for a signal and glorious triumph over their enemies. Fill them with the spirit of war, and enable them, in humble reliance on thee, to shoot, and stab, and trample down their foes. Nerve every arm, direct every blow; guide every sword, every bayonet, every bullet to the seat of life, that we may soon reap a glorious harvest of death. Thou knowest, O God most holy, that our enemies, murderers in heart, if not in deed, all deserve the damnation of hell; and we beseech thee to aid us in sending as many of them as possible to the place "where the worn dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Fight thou for us, and give thy servants a great victory, for which all the people shall praise thee.

And back in 1793, Anna Barbauld expressed her opposition to war in Sins of Government, Sins of Nations. She includes in her work this brutally honest caustic prayer:

God of Love, father of all families of the earth, we are going to tear in pieces our brethren of mankind, but our strength is not equal to our fury, we beseech thee to assist us in the work of slaughter. Whatever mischief we do, we shall do it in thy name; we hope, therefore, thou wilt protect us in it.

Well, since 9/11 "changed everything," what we need is a war prayer for the twenty-first century. Just as honest Christian warmongers should recite the Warmonger’s Psalm, assent to the Warmonger’s Beatitudes, manifest the Warmonger’s Fruit of the Spirit, and pray the President’s Prayer, so they should pray a war prayer like this:

O Lord God of war, we beseech thee to bless our troops in their latest military adventure. Go with U.S. soldiers as they travel around the globe to intervene in the affairs of other countries. Use the U.S. military to smite the enemies of the United States just like thou used the children of Israel in the Old Testament to smite the heathen nations. We ask for thy special protection on the U.S. soldiers who have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and now occupy those countries. Guide every bomb to its target, and every bullet to the heart of its victim. We pray that thou would send these Muslims to hell who dare to plant roadside bombs to harm U.S. soldiers. We know that thou will look after widows and orphans – so please help our soldiers, thy soldiers, to create as many widows and orphans as possible. Destroy the young Iraqi and Afghan children with bullets, malnutrition, or disease before they grow up and become suicide bombers. We beseech thee to guide all Predator drones to their targets in Pakistan and all the other countries where terrorists and their families need to be killed. Fill U.S. soldiers, thy servants, with the spirit of indifference to the death and destruction that they are causing. Avenge the United States, thy country, for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We also humbly request that thou move upon Congress to not only increase funding for this war, but the overall military budget as well so thy people can fight another just war against the Muslim infidel. All these things we ask in the name of the Prince of Peace.

We know, of course, that no war prayers like this will ever be prayed in public. No matter where or why U.S. troops are fighting, we will still simply be told to pray for the troops. But has anyone ever stopped to consider what the Lord thinks about these war prayers?

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on January 17, 2012.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

A War Prayer for the Twenty-First Century

She begins by discussing money and quoting my article:

Libertarians talk a lot about economics, and rightfully so. Money is central to a healthy economy. Christians are also concerned about money; in fact God talks frequently about money in the Bible. [Horn]

Actually, money is mentioned more in the Bible than anything else. I’ve written previously of this here. Scriptures tell us that money is a tool with which evil can control man. The Bible obviously doesn’t give political doctrine specific to the Fed, but rather as Christians we are taught to use our access to money as a way of evangelism through deed. This is something libertarianism leaves out, the God part. Are libertarians conservatives without God? That’s a question friends and I have discussed.

Yes, money is mentioned in the Bible a lot. Nonetheless, money is is not “a tool with which evil can control man.” “Evil” does not “control” man. Man has sinful desires, and he chooses to follow after those desires and commit evil actions. This is an important distinction, lest we become metaphysical dualists. Sin is indeed personified sometimes in the Bible, but it is clearly absurd to take such personification too far. As James 1:14-15 tells us, “But each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”

The language of James likens our sinful state to a struggle going on inside us, and it fits very well with what Paul says in Romans 7. Still, never do Paul or James imply that some ethereal “evil” controls the Christian. On the contrary, Romans 6:6-7 says, “For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin – because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.”

Money is indeed a tool, and man can use it do great good, or great evil, or anything in between. I would argue that money has a far greater potential for good than for evil, as is evidenced by the market ecosystem that produces such amazing things as, for instance, computers and the internet, or Bibles and theology books.

Now, although Loesch is right that there is no specific doctrine for the Federal Reserve, Loesch’s statements above are completely non-responsive to the actual substance of my argument: (1) that we need sound money in order to have genuine prosperity and to avoid the business cycle, and (2) sound money, as opposed to state fiat, is the proper moral and Biblical position. Stranger still, she somehow transitions from talking about money – and ignoring the Biblical point about money I was trying to make – to declaring that libertarians leave out “the God part.”

This statement is rather silly and also, quite frankly, rather insulting. It is clearly meant to stand in contrast to Christian “conservatives,” whom I suppose categorically make sure God is in every one of their doctrines, including big government national security and war, big government social security, big government education, and big government health care so long as it’s sponsored by Republicans like Bush or Romney.

More importantly, Loesch misses the point of the article. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that expounds upon natural law, and whose critical ethic is the non-aggression principle. Though not all libertarians believe in God (just as not all conservatives believe either), a vast number admit from the outset that natural law comes from a higher authority. It is transcendent to man, and no man is exceptional to it. The Christian libertarian takes the particular position that natural law was created by the God of the Bible, and that natural law will always stand in concordance with Biblical revelation. This stands in stark contrast to the typical conservative stance that is perfectly fine with giving special moral privilege to American leaders for various purposes regardless of what natural law or the Bible says.

Loesch moves on to war and peace, quoting my article once again:

It is truly unfortunate that modern American churches seem to think the state’s means of “spreading democracy” through aggressive war is more important than spreading the peaceful message of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus came to bring “peace on earth, good will to men,” and by extension the Christian’s goal ought to be the same. [Horn]

This passage presupposes that every conflict in which the United States has ever engaged is due to the United States’s frat boy aggression and need to sow its seed of democracy by force.

No, it does not make such a presupposition, but it does imply that I think the litany of recent wars is completely evil. Such an implication would be correct, in fact. Reader, if you are curious about the effects of American interventionism over time, perhaps you should peruse this article on the Middle East. George W. Bush eventually even admitted that the point of the Second Iraq War was to bring democracy to the Middle East, after the lies about WMDs and such were fully abandoned and they needed a new excuse to continue the violence.

Lest you think I spoke too quickly about the American churches at large – and I mean this in the general sense rather than every church everywhere in America – how many Christians noticed when the Department of State released its report saying that there are no more churches in Afghanistan? How many who did notice thought that this just might be related to American interventionism in Afghanistan for the past 10 years? Christians are typically fine with praying for their military members (I get that), but rarely, if ever, do you hear prayers on the behalf of the innocent people whom their military members directly affect. Where are their priorities?

One year after the Civil War was over, Church of Christ luminary David Lipscomb said: “Why is it that we see men willing to sacrifice property, the comforts of home, the sweets of the domestic and family relationship, undergo privations and sorrows, suffer hunger, and cold, and nakedness, and want for long and weary years, and freely give up life itself at the bidding of earthly rulers and for the sake of corrupt and perishing human kingdoms, while so few are willing to undergo the slightest inconvenience or suffer the least self-denial for the heavenly and eternal kingdom?” Yes, why is it?

Furthermore, it’s odd to me that a follower of limited government would advocate for a state-endorsed religion as a way of nation building, supplanting the previous logical fallacy.

How Loesch discerned from my writings that I support some sort of state-endorsed religious means of nation-building I will never know. Libertarians don’t endorse nation-building by governments at all. If anything, we are interested in spreading our values via peaceful interaction, never through force. Quite a “Christian” thought, I might add.

This author quotes Paul more than the Bible, which tells me everything I need to know about this piece. Ron Paul is not God.

This is potentially the worst accusation in Loesch’s post. Honestly, I do not feel as though I even have to answer it, because the quality of the statement is so poor and the accusation so ridiculous that it should be obvious how wrong it is. I will, however, make one note. When the Washington Post asked me to write an article for them, they requested 600 to 800 words on why some Christians embrace libertarianism and how Ron Paul fits into that. I cannot cover all topics nor can I quote everything I might want. I gave it a good shot, and even so my article ended up being just over 850 words. Loesch, you need to stop reading into my article too much, and trying to make me say things I have never said.

What is truly unfortunate is that by making the universal straw man that “modern American churches seem to think,” i.e. all churches, the author betrays a (conscious or subconscious) prejudice against churches based on his own presupposition.

Whoops, Loesch continues her uncharitable and fallacious reading! She completely misses the mark here, and if she had done her homework she would have probably realized that I love the church and, as I mentioned, even work part-time for one. In fact, I have frequently chided Christians who think that they can just get along without the fellowship of other Christians or who criticize all organized religion. Also, I love how she can read into my subconscious. That’s just outstanding. 

Horn misses a huge part of Christ’s work, exemplified in Matthew 10:34:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Generally, you need to do something called “exegesis” to understand the meaning of a passage like this. You cannot just proof-text Matthew 10:34 to refute the peace-loving nature of Jesus and that pesky “blessed are the peacemakers” passage. Or perhaps you should also call your mother, father, and siblings regularly just to say you have turned against them? (See the next verse.) Moreover, how does one extend this idea that Jesus knew conflict was coming spiritually between people into something akin to “peace between nations is a bad thing”?

I get that Horn wants to promote his stylized version of Biblical interpretation, but he should realize that Ron Paul’s words carry no weight compared to Christ’s, and he perhaps should study the Word of God more than Paul’s words, especially those newsletters.

Again, this statement is so off-center it is barely worthy of response. Besides the blatant insult regarding the newsletters, again she accuses me of elevating Ron Paul to god-status. Loesch, did you not realize I have a theology graduate degree from a reputable, theologically-conservative seminary? Of course not, because you didn’t do your homework. I don’t do “stylized interpretation,” Dana, I do scholarship. If you want to argue with me like scholars do then go right ahead if you can, but leave the needlessly incendiary comments at home.

There’s also this third graph:

Thus, Christian libertarians think that government power should be limited, sound money and truly free markets should return, aggressive war must cease and civil liberties must be preserved.

Scratch “libertarian” from this, it’s something every Christian I know believes, but how does Horn think our rights are secured? By lying prostrate before our enemies when they attack?

“Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Does that make our Founding Fathers that misused and abused term: “neocons?”

I highly doubt that every Christian Loesch knows truly believes in these principles. I doubt even Loesch agrees with the principle of sound money based on her earlier remarks. Besides, I would guess that the conservatives she knows thinks “limited” government means whatever Republicans want to do, like initiate unconstitutional wars, bailout entire industries, control education of children, and sponsor massive government healthcare programs. I would highly suspect she also knows plenty of Christian warmongers, who think all the aggressive wars of recent years are justifiable, and plenty of Christians who think personal lives ought to be regulated by the government in multitudinous ways. Unlike “conservatives,” libertarians actually care about limiting all government power, not just the power of Democrats.

Then, once again, she completely misrepresents what I said in my article. Never did I argue against using self-defense, but suddenly Loesch apparently thinks I am a complete pacifist (or something similar) who will not defend the rights of others. How ridiculous! If she is perhaps more innocently just indicating I did not say enough, well, there are editorial limits to what you can do with 800 words.

I disagree with the hyphenated way that Horn presents his religious discipline: Christian is Christian. There is no “libertarian Christian,” such division is expressly protested throughout the Gospel, especially in Paul’s address to the Ephesians which addresses division in the body of Christ. There is no need to self-segregate and doing so shows a lack of knowledge in the face of Christ who Himself and through his disciples preached unity.

We now arrive at what seems to be central point of the article. It relates to the title of the post as well, which is: “A Bad Way to Argue for Libertarian-Christianity.” Apparently, what seems to offend Loesch the most is that I would dare argue at all that Christianity and libertarianism are compatible. Doing so, she says, is hyphenating the faith. First off, this is a complete misreading of my article. Never did I say I was arguing for some “libertarian-form-of-Christianity.” Never have I done this on LibertarianChristians.com. On the contrary, any reader of this site can see through the long history of writing that I have always argued for being Christian first, such as this short blog post.

My goal is to get Christians to reconsider their political philosophy, because as far as I can see the modern American church (general sense) tends to elevate statism above principle. Learning better principles tends to lead Christians to embrace a more libertarian political philosophy; it’s a perfectly natural result. It is not, as C.S. Lewis warned us, injecting a “Christianity and…” problem into our theology, it is a consistent way of viewing natural law and behaving accordingly.

Statism is not only a miserable failure, but also fraught with moral hazard and prone to commit atrocities beyond imagination. Instead, let us heed the words of Frederic Bastiat: “And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.”

To conclude, I return to the beginning of Loesch’s article:

Can a Christian be a libertarian? A column with some questionable logic that prevents the piece from being truly thought-provoking. A few things: …

Does anyone else find it funny that the only complete sentence in the first paragraph is the title of my original article? More importantly, how is it that Loesch accuses my article of “questionable logic” when her own work is fraught with mischaracterizations, insults, and straw-man arguments? If this is representative of the quality of her BigJournalism site, then count me out.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

A Bad Way to Argue Against Being a Christian Libertarian

Catholic libertarians like myself have become accustomed to being lectured by priests, bishops and Catholic pundits about the inherent incompatibility of Catholicism and libertarianism. This assertion, whether presented in writing or as a harangue from the pulpit, is generally accompanied by a set of reliably tried-and-true myths about libertarianism that often demonstrates a poor grasp of what libertarianism even is. Of course, one never encounters a wholesale condemnation of Liberalism or Conservatism, mainly because large numbers of American Catholics generally self-identify as one or the other. Given the relatively small number of libertarians among the faithful however, one can safely denounce it, and neither courage nor erudition is required.

The opposition to libertarianism stems from a handful of myths that are circulated among Catholics about libertarianism.

Myth #1: Libertarians are libertines

It is certainly true that some libertarians are libertines, just as some people who profess to be Catholic are libertines as well. There is certainly nothing in the libertarian philosophy that precludes a person from being a libertine. Libertarianism after all, is a political theory only, and is based on the idea that it is immoral, except in cases of self-defense, to engage in violence against other persons. The state, being an organization that maintains a monopoly on the means of coercion, is based on the use of coercion and is thus inherently violent. To the libertarian then, the cases in which states can act morally must be either constrained to a very small number of situations or must be eliminated entirely.

So, libertarians merely argue that it is not moral for states to fine, imprison, kill persecute or otherwise coerce human beings who wish to behave in immoral ways that do not involve physical violence against others. For example, if a person wishes to smoke a joint, it is not moral for the state to persecute such a person since he or she has not done anything violent.

Mind you, there is nothing to prevent a private voluntary organization, such as a family or church or club or business from discouraging or denouncing such behavior in its members of employees. Indeed, libertarianism argues strongly in favor of private organizations like churches and families and businesses being free to demand whatever behavior they wish from their own members and employees.

This situation, of course, is what has predominated historically in Christendom. Drug laws, for example are an invention of the 20th century. Did Christians walk around high on drugs every day prior to the prohibition of marijuana use in the 1930s? Obviously not. Indeed one could argue that drug use is far more prevalent among Christians now than it was before drugs were made illegal. Saint Thomas Aquinas famously spoke against civil governments attempting to outlaw human vice. His contention that "[a]ccordingly in human government also, those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain evils be incurred," wasn’t a declaration that moral vices like prostitution were morally permissible. It was simply a recognition of the fact that to have the state outlaw a vice was often a cure worse than the disease.

Myth #2: Libertarians hate the poor

Those of us who have been involved in right-wing politics for years have all seen how some people might get this impression. Among Conservative and Republican pundits and activists, who often unconvincingly claim to be in favor of "free markets," one will often hear denunciations of poor people who are presumably lazy, deceptive and foolish. This, apparently, means that poor people and their children "deserve" to be poor.

It is very rare that someone will encounter this attitude with a libertarian who is not just a Conservative pretending to be a libertarian in an attempt to appear more hip.

In fact, a major reason that libertarians are so opposed to state power is that we recognize that the state causes most of the poverty that it later then turns around and claims to be eradicating. The current depression is a perfect example. There are now at least 8-10 million unemployed Americans. The current bust is the result of at least 20 years of economic meddling and wealth destruction encouraged by the government through manipulation of the money supply and through a runaway regulatory state. This has led to the current situation of a stagnant economy and rampant unemployment and underemployment.

As the middle class shrinks and millions descend into poverty, thanks to the state, how can we say that the state’s most vulnerable victims, the poor, "deserve" their present situation?

Libertarians recognize that providing for one’s self and one’s family is a difficult job and that people need to be as free as possible in pursuing those goals. Those people should also have more control of their income and their wealth so that they can provide more fully for their Churches as well. As it is, millions of working Americans give 40-50 percent of their income to fund massive government departments in Washington, DC, endless warfare and the bailouts of billionaires. Meanwhile, the government that we are taxed to fund is causing the poverty we’re told it can fix. The argument that the government is the best way to provide poverty relief is naïve in the extreme. Indeed, when it comes to letting the government be in charge of reducing poverty, one might as well put communists in charge of food production.

Myth #3: Libertarians neglect solidarity

Many libertarian Catholics, like Thomas Woods, have often made the point that libertarian ideals of a just civil government and just economy are well grounded in the subsidiarity principle –the idea that any act of government should be performed at the most local level possible- that has long been favored by Catholic theologians and popes.

Some Catholic pundits, such as Mark Shea, claim that libertarians inflate a concern for subsidiarity at the expense of solidarity. This notion of course, is based on an acceptance of Myths #1 and #2.

This myth can be dispelled in two different ways. First, we can note that libertarianism is not opposed to the success and legality of non-governmental organizations. Secondly, we note that libertarians oppose the organization that has done more to destroy human solidarity than any other organization in human history: the state.

First, there is nothing in libertarianism that makes libertarians opposed to the success and propagation of organizations and bodies on which solidarity is built. These include families, churches, clubs, association, schools, and even labor unions. Libertarians believe that all of these organizations should be free to exist without molestation from the state. For the Catholic libertarian, the most important foundations of society are of course the family and the Church. Under a libertarian regime, these organizations can be freely supported by any person, and he or she may peacefully encourage others to do so as well.

On the other hand, libertarians oppose the state. It is difficult to image just how exactly pro-state Catholics imagine that the state actually promotes solidarity. Does it promote solidarity by sowing class warfare through the stealing from one class to give to another? Is it the crony capitalism that impoverishes the poor for the sake of billionaires? Do the endless wars promote solidarity? Did the dropping of atomic bombs on women and children help solidarity? How about all the famines caused by governments from Ireland to China? Did the mass murder of priests in Mexico during the twenties promote solidarity?

Some Catholics will say, "You libertarians are too extreme. You want to cut back government too much just because some states have been really awful. If we can just vote in the right people, bad things like that won’t happen." In response I have one question: How has that been working out for you?

Myth #4: Libertarians support liberty only because it is in their self-interest

This one is the most easily disproven. Anyone who has been involved in libertarian activism knows that being a libertarian is not exactly a great career move. It is likely to make one unpopular and, if one is lucky, he will merely be considered to be a harmless eccentric by his co-workers and family members. Often, people are not that charitable. Most libertarians support libertarianism because they think it is the right thing to do, and not because there is some kind of expected material benefit. Very few libertarians expect major libertarian victories in the near future anyway.

Although there are real victories, such as the end of global communism in 1989 and the fact that Keynesian economics is now virtually discredited among everyone except government employees and academic economists, no libertarian actually expects to benefit in any meaningful way from the advance of libertarian ideas in his lifetime. For example, a great libertarian victory would be major cuts in military spending and the ending of the government’s many foreign wars. How that would monetarily benefit any libertarian who advocates for such a turn of events is hardly obvious.

Myth #5: Libertarians want to persecute Christianity

There are no doubt some libertarians who wish to persecute Christians, but if those libertarians actually adhere to libertarian principles of not using government power against people, then we don’t have much to fear from them, now do we?

On the other hand, a strong government is one of the most dangerous weapons in the hands of those who seek to persecute the faith (and also in the hands of those who don’t.)

One need not be a historian to notice that Catholicism in the United States has been persecuted to a much smaller extent than in many countries, including many so-called Catholic countries.

This is due in no small part to (quickly-waning) libertarian traditions in the United States regarding how the state interacts with religions. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This amendment is born from a tradition that comes to us from many lessons learned over the centuries in both Britain and in the American colonies. The colonials had learned that religious majorities tend to persecute religious minorities, and many of the framers of the Constitution came to the conclusion that the best way to promote Christianity was to leave it alone. Many Catholics have bought into the incorrect contention made by leftists that the establishment clause was the work of secularists, and that the separation of Church and state is somehow detrimental to Churches.

On the contrary, the separation of Church and state in America has been one of the greatest obstacles in the path of those who might have sought to persecute Catholics in what, for most of its history, has been a country imbued with anti-Catholicism.

Why is it, for example, that there have never been anti-clerical purges in the United States as there were in Mexico during the twenties? Why have Catholic women and children never been gunned down specifically for their faith as was the case in Spain during the thirties? Why were attempts at outlawing Catholic schools struck down as illegal? The answer is that there is a tradition in America, when it comes to religion, in which it is believed that the state which governs best, governs least. We call that philosophy a libertarian philosophy.

Unfortunately, in our present age of the unlimited state, the old constraints on the state, even in matters of religion, are breaking down at an increasingly rapid pace.

Not helping matters is the fact that there has long been a pro-state element within the Catholic clergy and hierarchy that has been whooping it up for all types of socialism in the name of poverty-relief.

Recently after decades of naïve pro-government boosterism, the bishops finally figured out that a state that is powerful enough to wage total war and to distribute wealth and regulate on a massive scale, is big enough to persecute and prosecute Catholics who refuse to commit sin in the face of government regulations.

Obviously, such a situation would never come to pass under even a militantly secularist libertarian regime since libertarians would never regulate health care. Catholic doctors, pharmacists and hospitals would be free to govern themselves in line with their Catholic faith.

Myth #6: Libertarians are not pro-life

There is no doubt that libertarians are split as to whether or not abortion should be legal. Since this is an open debate among libertarians, there is no "libertarian position" on the legality of abortion, and any claim that libertarians are "pro-abortion" is simply contrary to the facts.

On the other hand, we can note that libertarians are far less bellicose toward babies that are ex utero than are either Conservatives or Liberals. Both look the other way or actively defend horrific injuries to children in the name of "national defense" or "global democracy." Rare is the Conservative or Liberal who will denounce, for example, the firebombing of Japan as a crime against humanity, in spite of the fact that hundreds of thousands of Japanese women, children, toddlers and infants were burned to death horribly, as can be seen here.

The final document issued by the Second Vatican Council, known as Gaudium et Spes states that "[e]very act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and humanity, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."

Conservatives and Liberals routinely defend this sort of violence against civilians in the name of the war on terror or ridding the world of evil or some other unattainable and impractical utopia, yet it is the libertarians who are supposedly anti-Catholic.

The state is not our friend. Many Catholics oppose libertarians because apparently, some Catholics still cling to notions about government that have never been true, but have contended that states are somehow built on consent and virtue and that they do more good than harm. The reality is much different. Even the most uncorrupted and constrained states sow discord among their people, expropriate massive amounts of wealth to dole out to the politically well-connected, wage wars against civilians, suppress dissent, supplant the family and persecute the religious.

Clearly, this institution that is supposed to bring us so many blessings, is not nearly constrained enough.

The state is fundamentally an institution founded on violence. Saint Augustine once famously compared secular rulers to pirates. According to historian Ralph Raico:

In City of God, St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. The Emperor angrily demanded of him, "How dare you molest the seas?" To which the pirate replied, "How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor." St. Augustine thought the pirate’s answer was "elegant and excellent."

Alexander sought to bring civilization and enlightenment to the world. Our own government seeks the same. The times are different, but the outcomes are the same.

Originally posted on LewRockwell.com on January 4, 2012.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

6 Myths Catholics Tell About Libertarians

I have some simple yet pointed questions for Christians who subscribe to, or can be characterized by, the above things:

• Is the president of the United States God?
• Is America the nation of Israel?
• Is the United States the client state of God?
• Is the U.S. military the Lord’s army?
• Does the United States enjoy a special relationship with God that other nations don’t have?
• Is the Christian’s sword anything but the word of God?
• Does the Bible command any Christian to kill any adherent of a false religion?
• Does the Bible command any Christian to go on a crusade against Muslims?
• Does "obeying the powers that be" mean that Christians should always do anything and everything the government says?
• Does the Bible say that anyone other than God should receive unconditional obedience?
• Is it okay for Christians to participate in U.S. government wars just because God commanded the Jews in the Old Testament to go to war?
• Does the Lord approve of everything the U.S. government does?
• Does the Lord approve of everything the government of Israel does?
• Is being patriotic more important than being biblical?
• Is the Republican Party the party of God?
• Is it more scriptural for a Christian to be in the military than in the ministry?
• Does God need America’s help to protect Israel?
• Does God need the U.S. military to maintain order throughout the world?
• Is the U.S. military a godly institution?
• Is the CIA a godly institution?
• Did God command the United States to build over 1,000 foreign military bases?
• Did God command the United States to station troops in over 150 countries?
• Does God always approve of U.S. foreign policy?
• Is it biblical that churches send more soldiers to the Middle East than missionaries?
• Did God appoint the United States to be the world’s policeman?
• Does the New Testament command churches to hold special military appreciation days?
• Does the New Testament command churches to glorify the military on the Sunday before national holidays?
• Have U.S. wars always been just, right, and good?
• Are all Muslims terrorists?
• Was every Iraqi and Afghan killed by the U.S. military a terrorist?
• Does the New Testament encourage Christians to wage war against anyone or anything but the world, the flesh, and the devil?

If you are a Christian and answered in the affirmative to one or more of these questions, then I understand why you are an imperial Christian. Repent.

But if you are a Christian and answered in the negative to all of these questions, then why are you an imperial Christian? Why do you make apologies for the state, its leaders, its military, its wars, its imperialism, and its interventionism? Why are you so devoted to the Republican Party? Why do you sing songs to the state in church on the Sunday before national holidays? Why do you encourage Christian young people to join the military? Why do you recite meaningless prayers for God to bless U.S. troops engaged in unjust wars?

Think about these things. Pray about them. Meditate on them. Just don’t be an imperial Christian.

Originally published on LewRockwell.com on September 28, 2011

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Are You an Imperial Christian?

The gentlemen at the Freakonomics blog had some excellent things to say about the Ten Commandments of The American Religion. Some of it is hilarious to read, but the more salient point is that these are “meta issues” that form the background of American culture, and we need to understand it in order to fight it. Kudos to James Altucher for some thought-provoking content. Here’s a quick quote:

#3 Thou Shalt Recognize that Some Wars Are Holy. Everyone argued with me in my post about “Name me a war that was worth it.” Apparently some wars are “holy” and can’t be argued against. All I want is to prevent 18 year-olds from dying. That’s the basis of my argument. We can argue all the history we want after that.

Also, if you haven’t checked on LewRockwell.com recently, you really should read Lew’s latest article: The Police State Abolishes the Trial.

Today, every single citizen, no matter how free he or she may feel in daily life, is in reality a sitting duck. You can be made to disappear. There is essentially no way you can escape once the feds sweep you into their net. There is no justice. The total states of the past used to pretend to have trial-based convictions. The total state of the present doesn’t even bother. It just puts a sack over your head and takes you away…

How could this have happened in America? Well, looking back, it seems that it all stems from a single flaw: the belief that the most essential institution in society is the state that protects us from criminality and must maintain a monopoly over justice. Some of the greatest defenders of freedom otherwise have been happy to make this one concession to the state. And this one concession is now a major source of our undoing as a free people.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Freakonomics on the Ten Commandments of The American Religion, and more.

Active Christians need an objective in carrying out their civic duty. In America, Christians need to have a vision of what an ideal republic would look like, along with some specific objectives of social transformation in order to achieve that republic. A fallen world can be improved by a Christian’s efforts, but his efforts need to be focused.

In terms of political activism, a useful starting point for thinking about ideals is facilitated by considering society without any political structure, as well as considering the actions of fallen men in establishing it. The natural state of society is anarchy —not in the sense of untrammeled chaos but in the sense of having no established civil authority. Yet the sinful tendencies of men have led them to create states— parasitic power structures that devour social order and bring chaotic social conditions. As bad as society under anarchy may be it is always preferable to life under a state.

Therefore, Christians must be active in promoting a limited government that improves the social conditions that exist under anarchy. But they must also help to develop the means to check the power of government so that this predominant social apparatus is not transformed into a virulent and lethal state. They must establish institutions that secure and guarantee fundamental rights through the collective self defense of limited government, the strict application of the rule of law, and completely free markets.

Jury nullification is one such method for American Christians — from the ordinary to the most sophisticated—to work out a proper civic duty. Through jury nullification Christians can apply God’s principles to criminal or civil cases and quash a wayward judge’s penchant or defy a foul decree of the legislative or executive branches. To promote this concept, the American Jury Institute was founded.

Their website candidly and lucidly states:(¹⁾ “Juries protect society from dangerous individuals and also protect individuals from dangerous government. Jurors have a duty and responsibility to render a just verdict. They must take into account the facts of the case, mitigating circumstances, the merits of the law, and the fairness of its application in each case…Jurors, as the representatives of the people, hold no personal agenda during any trial and most certainly not the government’s agenda(²⁾… and are, in fact, the only truly objective individuals in the courtroom. The role of our jurors is to protect private citizens from dangerous, unconstitutional government laws and actions.” By doing so, jurors react against tyrannical states.

The republic that Christians should vie for is one based on the need for reactive public policy.(³⁾ Reactive policies are those policies which pertain to limited government: protection from predators foreign and domestic, seen and unseen (including hazardous microorganisms), and the establishment of law and order. Conversely, proactive policies seek to change or restrict the behavior of people or to redistribute social wealth via welfare state programs or by granting monopoly privileges to business interests.

What exactly does it mean to have a republic limited to reactive public policy? Local criminal courts, along with an appeals system, a military and some police forces to protect us from predators, a health department to combat epidemics, a statistics and elections section, some apparatus for engaging foreign policy including a consular system, border control, and passport issuance would be all that is required. A federal court system would deal with constitutional and inter-jurisdictional matters. The sheriff and judges from each county would be the highest civil authorities to ensure domestic tranquility. All other modern state functions would be privatized.(⁴⁾

Having this kind of republic also means the elimination of proactive policies: welfare and poverty programs, Social Security, federal grants, public education, agriculture, homeland security, borrowing, empire-building, foreign aggression, and wage and price controls. There would be no regulation of business whatsoever. There would be no state-granted monopoly privileges for business interests: tariffs, patents, copyrights, licenses, or permits. All welfare would be performed by private charities and churches.

Consequently, taxes would be very low and almost entirely indirect and voluntary through lotteries and use fees. There would be no need for payroll deductions or income taxes. Real property would be fully allodial(⁵⁾ or absolute with no property taxes, regulation, or eminent domain. Government would have few tasks and society would have greater peace and prosperity as a result of individuals enjoying more liberty. People would also have greater personal responsibility for their own actions and would thus have to help ensure that the rights of others are not violated. This ideal or vision of civil society, paring off some 90% of the current behemoth state (and the proportionate amount of taxes it requires), is what Christian activists should contend for as their proper civic duty. And with such clear objectives in mind Christians can effectively work to improve this fallen world.

⁽¹⁾ See http://www.fija.org/ and http://www.americanjuryinstitute.org. Their mission is: “to inform all Americans about their rights, powers, and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. Jurors must know that they have the option and the responsibility to render a verdict based on their conscience and on their sense of justice as well as on the merits of the law.”

⁽²⁾ The site also adds: “Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges, arresting officers—and the forensic investigators in most cases—are all a part of and receive their paychecks from government, with personal power bases to build and personal careers to protect through the ‘productivity’ of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors have no such stake in the outcome.” Plus, “The recognition of the authority and right of jurors to weigh the merits of the law and to render a verdict based on conscience, dates from before the writing of our Constitution, in cases such as those of William Penn and Peter Zenger. Should this right ever be suppressed, the people will retain the right to resist, having an unalienable right to veto or nullify bad and oppressive laws, and in fact then would be morally compelled to do so.” And, “Many existing laws erode and deny the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyranny by refusing to convict harmless people. Our country’s founders planned and expected that we, the people, would exercise this power and authority to judge the law as well as the facts every time we serve as jurors. Juries are the last peaceful defense of our civil liberties.”

⁽³⁾ Jury nullification is one of the main means that Christians have to achieve predominantly reactive public policy. Christians may also participate in voting, local political meetings, letter-writing to congressmen, liberty-advocating political action committees, and drives to petition government for a redress of grievances are other means of attaining and retaining reactive (rather than proactive) public policy.

⁽⁴⁾ State functions to be privatized include building inspectors, public works projects (e.g., roadways, bridges, railroads, and dams), civil procedure, marriage and divorce, product safety, mining, space exploration, transportation and occupational safety, securities and insurance markets oversight, controlling banking and the nation’s money supply, national parks, food and pharmaceutical grading, institutional accreditation, medical and disability insurance, small business development, postal services, firefighting and most policing services, and retirement savings (e.g., Social Security) plans.

⁽⁵⁾ For further discussion of allodial property and allodial policy, see John M. Cobin (1997), Building Regulation, Market Alternatives, and Allodial Policy (chapter 4, “An Overview of American Allodialism”) and John M. Cobin (1999), A Primer on Modern Themes in Free Market Economics and Policy (chapter 15, “Allodialism as Economic Policy”), both published by Alertness books.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on November 2, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Christian’s Political Objective

All Christians should be activists, although what each individual Christian decides to do politically should be left to the liberty of his conscience. Christians can make a difference through many means, such as petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, voting, participating in public meetings and informational lectures, writing to elected officials, and participating in jury duty. All of these activities are costly to Christians, not only in terms of incidental expenses incurred but also in terms of time. Accordingly, engaging in some political activities might seem to make no sense—at least theoretically—unless we begin to view them in a different light.

For example, voting is always futile in the sense that there is virtually no chance that any individual vote can change the outcome of a major election. The expected cost exceeds the expected benefit. Yet voting makes more sense for a Christian activist once other accrued benefits are considered. Economic efficiency is reached when the benefits of activism are elevated in our minds through exalting the importance of spreading the truth, standing up for principles, and transforming our society by heralding the fundamental rights that America’s Founders held dear. To the extent that voting can help accomplish these things or encourage virtue it becomes a net benefit to a Christian (i.e., the benefit exceeds the cost).

Of course some political action remains out-of-bounds. For instance, Christians should generally not be involved in working for immoral state bureaus including welfare distribution, public education, and agencies that defy fundamental rights. By and large, Christians should not back any proactive policy either by working for a bureau that implements such policies or by voting for their creation or extension. The same restriction applies to working for or patronizing most public enterprises and state-run industries.

Nevertheless, Christians have warrant to exercise political rights when it is expedient to do so. The Apostle Paul used his political clout as a Roman citizen both when he employed his rights and when he “appealed to Caesar” (Acts 16:37-38; 22:25-26; 25:11; 28:19). Christians may thus likewise make use of political means to declare and affirm that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property (or the pursuit of happiness) are fundamental rights,(¹⁾ derived antecedent to the existence of the state. They can advocate that the state does not grant such fundamental rights. On the contrary, the primary reason that government is formed is to protect these rights. The American Founders clearly understood that no man holds his fundamental rights at the pleasure of the state.

Christian activists should work to spell out these fundamental rights in particular. First, all human beings share equally in the right to life, and the state may not abridge the right to life of any particular human being (or class of human beings) “without due process of law” and subsequent conviction of a capital offense. Second, all human beings share equally in the right to liberty, and the state may not forcibly enslave, conscript, or incarcerate a human being “without due process of law” and subsequent conviction of a crime. Third, all human beings share equally in the right to hold and enjoy property, so long as their pursuit of happiness does not infringe upon the rights of others, and the Constitution prohibits government from taking private property “for public use, without just compensation”.(²⁾

Since Christians are required to “overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21), they should be at the forefront of the battle to save their fundamental rights from being taken away by the wayward state and its evil policies. Accordingly, American Christians might choose to organize or participate in First Amendment protests to that end. They might also “break the law” in order to preserve life. (A strong case can be made from Proverbs 24:11-12 (3) that justifies abortion clinic protesting with groups like Operation Rescue.)

And here’s another biblically-based maxim apropos to Christian social conduct: The truth is never owed to a criminal. Accordingly, any statute requiring the disclosure of privileged information may be violated by Christians in order to prevent the state from committing crimes. If a robber enters your home and demands to know if you have any gold you do not have to tell him the truth. If Hitler’s men ask you if you have any Jews you do not have to tell them the truth. If an extortive taxing authority that accomplishes evil policies hopes for voluntary disclosure of your earnings (that you can avoid by some means), you do not have a duty to tell them the whole “truth” about your income.

The taxpaying requirement set forth in Romans 13:6-7 refers to circumstances in which paying a tax is demanded by the state on-the-spot, and where noncompliance would inevitably expose a Christian to facing the state’s “wrath” — not to mention cause him much anxiety. Note that Jesus Christ was not worried about His tax liability (Matthew 17:27), even though (being God) He knew it existed. He might even have opposed paying taxes (Luke 23:2). He certainly manifested no qualms over avoiding taxes.

Christians overcome evil with good by proclaiming the truth and living a life that glorifies the Lord. On occasion, being valiant-for-truth involves exercising political rights or even breaking the state’s rules. Yet God is honored as Christians spread goodness and expose or cast out evil state policies.

⁽¹⁾ These rights are set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment (Bill of Rights) to the Constitution.

⁽²⁾ Such public uses include highways, dams, bridges, government office buildings, military installations, and similar public projects. Other uses such as increasing local tax revenues, clearing urban blight, removing church buildings, promoting urban development, and similar proactive “public interest” or “public welfare” schemes are not contemplated in the phrase “for public use”. The phrase “just compensation” refers to market value based on comparable properties, and would not preclude the government from paying relocation expenses. Of course, such loopholes are constitutional matters, but in terms of a Christian ideal there should be no eminent domain policy at all. If the government needs real property for some project then let its bureaucrats go to a realtor like other people do. Christian activists might shoot for the ideal of eliminating eminent domain. At the same time, they might fight to at least preserve the constitutional restrictions, in light of the dangerous popular “living interpretation” of modern courts.

⁽³⁾ Proverbs 24:11-12: “Deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Surely we did not know this,’ Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?”

Originally published in The Times Examiner on October 26, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Christian and Political Activism

Christian Libertarian Books

Christian Theology of Public Policy, by John Cobin – A great way to start is to read John Cobin’s short course here on LCC, but his book is a must-have for Christian libertarian thinkers. His other book, Bible and Government (read the LCC review here), overlaps some material bust is worth reading as well.

On Civil Government, by David Lipscomb – Few people in the 19th century had a radical vision like David Lipscomb. His critique of statism from a Christian standpoint is classic. This book is a bit difficult to find sometimes but you can get the text for free here. Laurence Vance has it in stock in his classic reprints series, look for number 117.

Religion and Capitalism: Allies, Not Enemies, by Edmund Opitz – Another great book to help back up your defense of the free market from a Christian perspective. Also a bit difficult to find. (I managed to purchase a SIGNED copy on eBay once, though…)

The Libertarian Theology of Freedom, by Edmund Opitz – Read the review here.

Disciple of Liberty, by Jason Rink – Read the review here.

Christianity and War, by Laurence Vance – War is the health of the state, and the enemy of mankind. Laurence demolishes every “Christian” argument for war you’ll ever hear.

Foundations of Economics: A Christian View, by Shawn Ritenour – Every Christian ought to understand some economics, and Shawn’s book is a great way to get a thorough understanding. This one is not for the uninitiated.

The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, by Thomas Woods – This book is especially useful for Catholics, obviously, and I highly recommend it.

General “Must-Read” Libertarian Books

For a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard

Our Enemy, the State, by Albert Jay Nock

Healing Our World, by Mary Ruwart

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas Woods

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, by Robert Murphy – I really like these aforementioned Politically Incorrect Guides because of how they serve as a jumping off point for so many super things to learn and consider.

Rollback, by Thomas Woods

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Bonus Material (for those who want extra challenges)

The Kingdom of God is Within You, by Leo Tolstoy – Read the review here.

Anarchy and Christianity, by Jacques Ellul – Read the review here.

Still looking for more? Check out the brand new-and-improved LCC Amazon Bookstore! Find all of these books and more, and a portion of the sale will go to support LibertarianChristians.com!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

How to start learning about Christian libertarianism

For a libertarian Christian, is there such a thing as a just war, or are all libertarian Christians pacifists?

This is a terribly difficult question to answer. In sum, I do not believe that being a pacifist is a requirement for a Christian libertarian, but being anti-war is mandatory.

Proper wars – military conflicts – are almost always begun by states, between states. Other instances of wars, such as the Revolutionary War, are few in history. Since the Christian libertarian’s understanding of the state is that it is founded in rebellion against God and is evil in nature, we also understand that its reasons for executing violence against others must also be impure, vile, and evil. We must assume until proven otherwise that any war is unjust. (Even the Revolutionary War’s necessity is debatable, honestly.)

Just war theory, as proposed by Augustine first and many others following him, seeks to limit the state’s justifications for going to war, but there is a downside with the theory as well. Robert Brimlow has addressed this in his book What About Hitler?, and Laurence Vance had this to say in his review of Brimlow’s work:

Brimlow then demolishes the finer points of just war theory itself, even taking on the theologian Thomas Aquinas. The author considers just war theory, "as developed and defended both by church theologians and secular philosophers," untenable, and for three reasons:

• Just war theory is untenable because it is difficult to know with sufficient confidence whether all of its conditions have been met.
• Just war theory is untenable because some of its tenets are impossible to realize.
• Just war theory is untenable because it used to justify rather than to prevent war.

Go to Laurence’s full article for even more elaboration. I find it compelling. Just war theory has been used to justify terrible wars, including every American intervention/war of the 20th and 21st century. Why, then, would I want to adopt it?

Again, I do not think pacifism is the ultimate answer, but I think Leo Tolstoy, Stanley Hauerwas, John Yoder, and Dietrich Bonheoffer make strong cases for it. Here at LCC, Doug Douma has made persuasive arguments as well. On the other side, I don’t think we can claim that Jesus saying “turn the other cheek” completely excludes all forms of self-defense (see my exegesis of Matthew 5). Who knows, perhaps I will be convinced of pacifism someday, I don’t claim to have this nailed down yet. Currently, I think understanding the use of force through a careful viewing of natural law and ethics reveals the appropriateness of basic self-defense to protect one’s life, family, and property. But, you had darned well better be sure if you ever, ever raise your hand against another person.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Just war or pacifism? Neither?