Archive for liberty
Great Libertarian Memes
Posted by: | CommentsSince January 30th of this year, I have been posting reprints of “meme” articles that Bureaucrash once promoted. I believed them to be too valuable to fade away into the dark corners of the internet, hence I took it upon myself to preserve them in some small way. If you haven’t had a chance, take a look at these great short explanations of libertarian principles on everything from health care to public education. You are sure to benefit from spending some time with these.
- Communism Kills
- Culture
- Don’t Tread
- Earth Liberation
- Enjoy Capitalism!
- Free Trade Now!
- Freedom: My Anti-Gov
- Down with Censorship!
- Hands Off My Home
- Homeland Tyranny
- I Am Not a Number
- ImmiGreat
- Politics Hurt
- Progressives Against Progress
- Smoking is Healthier Than Fascism
- Social Slavery
- Stop Rent-seeking
- Stop Statism
- Tax Slavery Sucks
- Teensploitation
- Who Owns You?
Share the memes with your friends, these ideas were meant to be free!
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: Bureaucrash, classic essay, freedom, liberty, memes, rights
Related Content:
Gay Rights, Marriage, and Government Intervention
Posted by: | CommentsI recently received an email from an inquisitive individual David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, regarding a “Christian libertarian’s” viewpoint on gay rights, marriage, and government intervention. Until I hear from him otherwise, I am withholding his name, but Here is his original question and my response.
This has also led me to begin the process of forming a “Frequently Asked Question” section of LCC, which you will see in the near future. In the meantime, if you have any burning questions on your mind and you want a plumbline libertarian, or Christian libertarian, answer, feel free to drop me a line using the Contact page.
The Question:
Where do you and other libertarian Christians stand on gay rights? I assume you supported the repeal of sodomy laws before the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional, but if you really support separation of religion and state (which I assume you do), do you also believe that the marriage license is a secular, nonreligious document and contract that should be available to same sex couples? If not, why not? And if not, what form of relationship recognition for same sex couples do you support? In my view, your stand on this issue is really the chief indicator of where you and other self-described Christian libertarians really stand on the separation of church and state. Thanks for your thoughts.
The Answer:
There are multiple issues at hand in your question, and I’ll try to address each as best I can.
(1) Where do libertarian Christians stand on gay rights? Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Just as other libertarians have said, your rights do not change based on your sexual preference. Correspondingly, you also do not get special rights because you are homosexual. An individual or government cannot, for instance, force a minister to perform a wedding ceremony against his will. This is simply a re-statement of the non-aggression principle.
Had I the opportunity, yes I would have supported the repeal of sodomy laws before the US Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional. Any activity between consenting individuals should not be punitively punished by the state.
(2) Do libertarian Christians believe that the marriage license is a secular, non-religious document and contract that should be available to same-sex couples? Libertarians in general should not think marriage “licensing” is any better than occupation licenses, and are not within the purview of governmental power. If government has any purpose at all in this arena of life, it is to be a storehouse for consensually agreed upon contracts, of which Christian marriage or other arrangements such as those between homosexuals could be included. However, it is not up to the state to decide how to regulate such contracts.
Christian marriage is an institution of the church, not that of the government. Therefore, the government should have no power to tell churches what they can and cannot do regarding Christian marriage.
Similarly, it is not the right of Christians, regardless of their view of homosexuality, to tell others how they are to arrange their own consensual contracts. Therefore, if a homosexual couple wishes to file a contract and they want to call it a “marriage contract,” then that is their prerogative and I have no right to forbid them from doing so. If they want to call it a “civil union” instead, that’s fine as well. With regards to any tax benefits, of course I support any and all measures to reduce the sum total that the government steals from people, provided that spending is also reduced in corresponding measure rather than the shortfall being printed out of thin air. Taxation and government spending are always bad.
However, not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God. Such non-agreement is my religious perspective, and thus cannot be used as a rationale to coerce others. To me, this is the essence of being socially tolerant: though I disagree with a behavior I shall not raise an aggressive hand against it. I would use a similar argument to defend any non-aggressive behavior even if I believed it to be wrong.
Most importantly, and I think this is the key point, all of this is only an issue not because of our lack of “separation of church and state” (though I certainly want the government out of the church, it’s far too corrupt) but because we have a state in the first place that constantly infringes upon our civil liberties. Power to regulate personal relationships in any way, including marriage, should never be given to the state. The beauty of the free society is that we can still live at peace with each other even if we do not agree with certain lifestyle choices that others make. What I am proposing in the above paragraphs is simply that restoring civil liberties involves getting the government out entirely.
Thus, there are differing levels to how Christian libertarians must handle this “rights” issue with the state we encounter today:
- As it pertains to the United States, we should never condone the Federal government handling any kind of marriage issue. Such legislation would not be Constitutional. Instead, we should promote the elevation of individual rights always superseding the government.
- At the state level, Christian libertarians should not support further government intrusion into marriage in general. This is unacceptable power given to the government. For example, I do not think it right for state governments to pass marriage amendments that either legalize or make illegal the practice of “gay marriage.”
- Christian libertarians should, in general, support the recognition of all consensual contracts, including those of the “civil union” type. This is especially reasonable considering that any money the government does not steal is a good thing.
I imagine this view could garner much criticism from the Christian community at large, but I find it to be rational and I expect that any Christian who considers himself a libertarian would, upon careful inspection, find this argument to be rational as well.
Thanks for your email, let me know if I have been unclear in any way and I’ll try to rectify it.
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: civil liberties, contracts, homosexuality, liberty, rights
Related Content:
Stop Rent-seeking
Posted by: | CommentsThis article is #17 of a weekly series highlighting the former memes of Bureaucrash, an organization once headed by my friends Pete Eyre and Jason Talley of the Motorhome Diaries. The memes were originally authored by Pete Eyre and Anja Hartleb-Parson, and were intended as means of communicating ideas about liberty in catchy and succinct ways.
Rent-seeking refers to the behavior of individuals or groups expending resources to achieve public policy decisions that transfer wealth to them at the expense of others. Some examples:
- A nonprofit organization might seek for the government to spend taxpayer money on their pet cause, such as protecting the environment or researching a disease.
- A workers’ union might want the government to force employers to provide higher wages, more benefits and greater job security.
- A corporation might seek subsidization to support an unsustainable business model instead of working to become more profitable.
While the rent-seekers should be faulted for the behavior, it is the government granting rent-seekers what they want that is the real problem. As it shells out more benefits and privileges, government has to collect more taxes to administer and pay for them, thus vastly increasing its size and scope.
Rent-seeking is theft. A rent-seeker wants to achieve a wealth transfer in his favor without having to provide value in return. In a mixed economy, companies and organizations find it more effective to petition the government for protection (i.e. subsidies, tariffs, entry barriers, regulations, etc.) than to compete by providing goods and services that consumers want to pay for. Since in a free market the choices of other individuals might not go in his favor, the rent-seeker would rather have the government initiate force against those individuals. The free market, on the other hand, is predicated upon and respects individuals’ free choices. Rent-seekers hinder the dynamism of the free market. When you and I trade in the free market, we each give the other something the other wants more than we want it, relative to what we receive in exchange. By contrast, when the government initiates force in favor of a rent-seeker, it makes everybody but the rent-seeker worse off. It leaves the rent-seeker’s competitors worse off, because the rent-seeker now has a government-enforced advantage, whether in the form of a government-approved monopoly, or stifling regulations faced by would-be entrepreneurs. Because market forces and signals are hindered and distorted, this leaves consumers worse off. They are forced to pay higher prices for poorer quality goods and services.
Rent-seeking harms economic growth. Instead of companies investing their money in new technology, new jobs, offering consumers better products and better prices, or increasing their employees’ pay, the money ends up in the pockets of lobbyists and the politicians able to grant favors. Consumers are forced to pay more for goods and services and taxpayers have to foot the bill for the rent-seekers’ government-enforced advantage. So, over time, as government arbitrarily favors one group over another and expands in size in order to pay for rents, rent-seeking erodes the mechanisms that make economic growth and wealth creation possible: the impartial rule of law, limited government and individual rights.
Statists, whether out of distrust of individuals or faith in the ability of the government, prefer that the state controls people instead of people controlling themselves; they opt for government intervention rather than individual liberty. Statist policies can include regulation of the economy, provision of social goods, and control over personal behaviors. Many political ideologies can be subsumed under the label “statist” — communism, fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism. Even a democracy can become statist if it does not create or does not follow constitutional safeguards against the majority imposing its will without regard for the individual rights of the minority.
Statism is anti-liberty. Individuals have property in themselves, also called self-ownership, which entails they should be free to control their bodies, their minds and their lives. The only way to interfere with that freedom is by means of physical force. The job of governments is to defend individual rights by protecting individuals against the initiation of physical force. However, when governments institute statist policies, they initiate force against individuals who are not infringing on the liberty of others and thus violate individual rights. For instance, regulations, tariffs and subsidies for businesses violate the rights of entrepreneurs and consumers, who both are prevented from voluntarily determining the terms of their interactions with others. If I choose to not give my money to a certain business, government has no authority to overrule that decision. It violates my freedom of choice and deprives others of the property they would have gained in the absence of government interference. Immigration restrictions violate the rights of individuals, since they are prevented from peacefully living and working where they choose to. Bans on smoking and the use of other drugs, speed limits and seat belt requirements, and laws preventing the sale of organs violate your rights since you are prevented from making decisions about your own body.
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: economics, individualism, liberty, memes, private property, taxation
Related Content:
Libertarian Overtones in Iron Man 2
Posted by: | CommentsI had the great opportunity to see Iron Man 2 at the IMAX in Austin on opening day last Friday. Though it didn’t quite match the sheer delight of the first film, I was impressed and had a great time. There are also some serious libertarian overtones in it. I would write more about it, but the following thoughts from Stacy Litz writing independently for the Houston Examiner are fantastic. I hope you get a chance to enjoy the film as much as I did.
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: culture, liberty, movies, property rights
Related Content:
Politics Hurt
Posted by: | CommentsThis article is #13 of a weekly series highlighting the former memes of Bureaucrash, an organization once headed by my friends Pete Eyre and Jason Talley of the Motorhome Diaries. The memes were originally authored by Pete Eyre and Anja Hartleb-Parson, and were intended as means of communicating ideas about liberty in catchy and succinct ways.
When confronted with a problem most people today turn to the government—but in reality, it’s often the government that created the problem and its continued involvement only exacerbates the problem. Politics distorts free market signals, quashes rights, and, quite bluntly, kills individuals.
Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.
Tags: liberty, memes, violence
Related Content:




