The average American is in favor of freedom and he’ll tell you so in no uncertain terms. He wants Church and State separate, he would object if government were to censor the press, he doesn’t want some bureau­crat dictating to professors what they should teach. But at the same time he wants government to con­trol and regulate business; he thinks industry and trade need to be policed in order to protect the con­sumer from the wolves. Warming up to his subject he proceeds to catalogue the wickedness of people engaged in commercial activity, and especially the sins of "big business."

Strange to say, these turn out to be the same old sins one finds in every walk of life. Some men in the business world are wicked, no doubt; but so are some ministers, some pro­fessors, some publishers, some en­tertainers, and even some television commentators. There’s no reason for singling out businessmen—except to provide a specious rationale for saddling economic life with ever more bureaucratic regulations and controls. This has adverse economic effects, of course, adding to the costs of doing business and making all of us poorer, but that’s not the worst of it. When economic enterprise is not free every other freedom is in jeopardy.

Human liberty is a precious and a fragile thing. Human liberty can not be won, or even sustained, on the economic level alone; but it can be lost on that level, and it is being lost there. Control the economic life of a people and you control every other aspect of their lives as well. "Power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will." The truth of this ancient maxim has been pounded home in our time by the conditions of life behind the Iron Curtain.

Now, it is true that business is not the only sector of our society under fire. Our whole civilization—western civilization—has been under siege for several generations; and because our culture so largely embodies bourgeois values, the at­tack against business is reinforced by the revolutionary Communist thrust to unseat the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie are the middle class—townspeople engaged in indus­try and trade—and their emergence in the modern period was opposed by the aristocracy, whose values were quite different. Few of us live next door to counts, dukes or lords: the nobility is distant in time and space, glowingly enshrined in romance and myth. "The nobleman has cour­age, spends without counting, de­spises petty detail. There is a great air of freedom and unselfishness about the nobleman. He will throw his life away for a cause, not calcu­late the returns. That is the noble idea. In reality, he lives by the serf­dom of others, and he broadens his acres by killing, and taking other people’s land-’the good old rule, the simple plan. That they should take who have the power, and they should keep who can." These are Jacques Barzun’s words.

Dr. Barzun continues, "The bourgeoisie opposed such noble free-handedness and supported a king who would replace ‘the good old rule’ by one less damaging to trade and manufacture—and to the peas­ants’ crops. But the regrettable truth is that there is no glamour about trade. Trade requires regular­ity, security, efficiency, an exact quid pro quo, and an exasperating attention to detail. . . . There is nothing spontaneous, generous or large-minded about it. Man’s native love of drama rebels against a scheme of life so plodding and re­sents the rewards of qualities so niggling."

"What a convenient word is bourgeois!" Barzun observes. "How expressive and well-shaped for the mouth to utter scorn. And how flexi­ble in its application—it is another wonderful French invention!"

The Working Class

The free enterprise system—or what is popularly called "cap­italism"—has a special affinity for the type of man we’d call bourgeois or middle class. Industry and trade have never been the preoccupation of any aristocracy, which dislikes to sully its hands with ordinary work. Most of the world’s work today is done by those who have risen from the ranks, largely by their own efforts, in societies which have no rigid caste barriers to prevent upward mobility.

The emergence of the busi­nessman during recent centuries was not a solitary adventure; the freeing of the business sector of western society went hand in hand with the expansion of other liberties we cherish. The story is a familiar one, and it begins with the religious revolution of the 16th century which led eventually to the separation of church and state, and freedom of worship. Free speech and freedom of the press were parts of this liberat­ing movement, and eventually—as Mercantilism gave way before the current of ideas released by Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and others—economic enterprise was freed from political regulations and controls, and came under consumer guidance.

Consumers—by our millions of daily decisions in the market place to buy this or not buy that—project a pattern; and these buying habits of ours give entrepreneurs the clues they need to direct production into this channel or that, in an effort to please customers. In the free econ­omy the consumer is sovereign. You may regard your product as the best gismo available anywhere at any price, but if the consumers don’t like it they buy elsewhere and you go out of business. You, as an entrepre­neur, have no power over customers except your ability to persuade and the quality of your product. This is the free market economy, and it is an integral part of the free society.

Everyone’s Business

Freedom, we hear it said, is everyone’s business, so each of us really does have a stake in freedom in-general. To the extent that any­one’s freedom is lost, everyone’s freedom is in jeopardy. But there are particular freedoms, and when a particular freedom is attacked you’d expect those directly involved to rush to its defense. And this is what you do find in most instances. When religious liberty is threatened, churchmen unite to oppose the threat. When freedom of the press is imperiled newsmen band together. Any impairment of academic free­dom is challenged by teachers, and intellectuals do battle on behalf of free speech. And when freedom of economic enterprise is being throt­tled by governmental controls busi­nessmen and business organizations mobilize to resist the attack. Right? Wrong!

Businessmen, all too often, are unwilling to speak out vigorously, even in self-defense—as the cele­brated economist, Joseph Schumpe­ter, has scathingly pointed out: "Perhaps the most striking feature of the picture is the extent to which the bourgeoisie, besides educating its own enemies, allows itself in turn to be educated by them. It absorbs the slogans of current radicalism and seems quite willing to undergo a process of conversion to a creed hos­tile to its very existence. . . . This is verified by the very characteristic manner in which particular capital­ist interests and the bourgeoisie as a whole behave when facing direct at­tack. They talk and plead—or hire people to do it for them; they snatch at every chance of compromise; they are ever ready to give in; they never put up a fight under the flag of their own ideals and interests—in this country there was no real resistance anywhere against the imposition of crushing financial burdens during the last decade or against labor legislation incompatible with the ef­fective management of industry."

I can imagine an ideal society where each sector was alert to rebuff threats to any other sector; where clergymen would go to bat whenever freedom of the press was threatened, and publishers jealously guarded academic freedom, and professors fought for freedom of medical prac­tice, and doctors resisted every bu­reaucratic invasion of the market place, and businessmen cherished freedom of religion. In real life, however, things do not happen this way.

It is partly the fault of business itself that the freedom most gravely threatened right now is the freedom of the economy, on which not only our prosperity depends, but much else besides. Those immersed in the grubby details of the market place often lose sight of the big picture; the head of a business worries about falling sales and how to meet the next payroll, but here, in this serene academic environment, we can sit back and theorize.

Better Understanding, The Best Defense

The best defense of the free econ­omy is a better understanding of the free economy, shared by more people. So let’s put capitalism to the test. Put aside, for the moment, any opinions you may entertain about the free enterprise system we now have, and let’s draw up some plans for an ideal economic order. If we were starting from scratch what requirements would we lay down for an economic order that would meet with our approval? I’m going to sug­gest that there are four major de­mands we should make of any economic system, and after we have spelled these out a bit each of us can decide for himself whether our pres­ent system falls short and how it might be strengthened and de­fended.

A good economic system has four characteristics:

1. A good economy produces goods and services efficiently.

2. A good economy allocates re­wards equitably, to all partici­pants.

3. A good economy broadens the scope for individual free choice.

4. A good economy functions in harmony with religious and moral values.

There’s no argument on the first point; our present economic system does deliver the goods, as even its enemies admit. The American econ­omy has never been wholly free; it has operated under various political restraints from the very beginning. But compared to the politically planned economies of other nations our relatively free economy has been a paragon.

Producing and exchanging in a largely free country has bestowed a prosperity upon America that the world envies. Americans started poor. There was little per capita wealth two hundred years ago; but our forebears had an abundant faith in the nation’s future under God, a strong belief in themselves, and they practiced the Puritan work ethic. This was the land of opportu­nity, and millions of the poor and oppressed of other nations migrated here to make their own way in this "land of the free." By and large they succeeded; never have so many ad­vanced so far out of poverty in so short a time.

There have been evils in Ameri­can life, and some are there still; along with errors, shortcomings and blind spots. But what other nation is entitled to cast the first stone, or the second, or the third? Lf the American Dream has faded, if there is tarnish on our idealism, where lies the fault? The Church and the School are the institutions charged with the responsibility for things of the mind and spirit, and if we have lost that vision without which the people perish, if our value system is in disarray, we surely can’t blame business and industry—which merely reflect the consensus.

The Goals of Life

The goals of human life, the ends appropriate for creatures such as we, are the primary concerns of reli­gion and education. The increase of material well-being may be the means for achieving the good life; it is certainly not the end for which life should be lived. The economic order has the modest role of supplying our creaturely needs efficiently so that we may have the leisure to pursue our personal goals. In America the economy has performed its role commendably. It is not to be blamed for the failures of other institutions. The relatively free economy we have enjoyed in America has brought unparalleled prosperity, but an affluent society is not neces­sarily a just society. And so we come to the second test we wish to put to the free enterprise system: Does it allocate the rewards fairly and equitably?

In a free society every one of us is rewarded by his peers according to the value willing buyers attach to the goods and services he offers in exchange. This is the market in ac­tion. This market place assessment is made by consumers, and we all know that consumers are ignorant, venal, biased, stupid; in short they are people very much like us! This does seem to be a clumsy way of deciding how much or how little of this world’s goods shall be put at this or that man’s disposal.

Isn’t there an alternative? Yes, there’s an alternative, and it occur­red to people more than two millen­nia ago. We’ll invite the wise and the good to come down from Olym­pus to sit as a council among men, and we’ll appear before them one by one, to be judged on personal merit and rewarded accordingly. Then we’ll be assured that those who make a million really deserve it, and those who are paupers belong at that level; and we’ll all be contented and happy. What lunacy! The genuinely wise and good would not accept such a role, and I quote the words of the highest authority de­clining it: "Who made me a judge over you?"

The market place decision that this man shall earn twenty-five thousand, this one ten, and so on, is not, of course, marked by supernal wisdom; no one claims this. But it is a million miles ahead of the alterna­tive, which is to recast consumers into voters, who will elect a body of politicians, who will appoint bureaucrats, who will divvy up the wealth—by governmental legerde­main. This mad scheme backs away from the imperfect and lurches into the impossible! There are no perfect arrangements in human affairs, but the fairest distribution of material rewards attainable by imperfect men is to let a man’s customers decide how much he should earn; this method will distribute economic goods unequally, but equitably.

We do live in an affluent society, and the fact is that the prosperity generated by our relatively free in­stitutions has been widely shared by the American people. There are the rich, there are the less well to do, and there are still some poor; but this allocation of rewards represents the choices of people themselves—as reflecting their buying habits. But the question still remains; do we have a lopsided society in which a handful of people have accumulated the bulk of the wealth produced in our economy? Dubious statistics are offered to demonstrate that 10 per cent of the people own two-thirds of the wealth, or three-quarters, or 90 per cent, or whatever. Is there any truth in such figures, or do they tell a lie?

There’s a fairly simple way to check this out for yourself. Take home ownership. Is it a fact that a handful of people own the homes most of us live in? To the contrary; 45 million homes are owned by the families that occupy them. Assum­ing the family unit to consist in father, mother and one child this accounts for 135 million persons. Millions of other Americans can ^afford to own their homes, but choose instead to rent an apartment or a house. Take automobile ownership: 82 million people own their own cars and 33 million own two or more cars. There are 130 million licensed driv­ers in the country.

Eighty-three million housing units have electric refrigerators; there are 125 million television sets, 55 million of them color; 70 million homes have washing machines; and there is a radio for every man, woman and child in the country. And as for food, we are the only nation in history whose number one medical problem is overeating! I do not know who concocted the first share-the-wealth scheme. It was ages ago, and it was a pipe dream from the beginning. It is a pipe dream still for most of the world’s people. But in America that dream has come true—in large measure. Capitalism—the free economy—has produced material abundance, and the benefits of our prosperity are enjoyed by almost every man, woman, and child in the country—as well as by millions of people around the globe.

Let me pursue this point through one more stage. Most people, when they reflect on the matter, agree that there is no concentration of ownership in everyday things like houses, automobiles and food. But when they get into the arcane world of the corporation, they are easily misled by those who have twisted "big business" into a four-letter word; they have been led to believe that the industry of this country is owned by a handful of stockholders.

Widespread Ownership

Pick any one of the giant corpora­tions and examine its annual report. I picked Exxon, a fairly large outfit. The 1976 Annual Report reveals that Exxon is owned by approxi­mately 700,000 shareholders; that’s roughly 5½ times as many owners as employees, and it’s about as many people as live in the whole state of Delaware. That’s a lot of people, but there’s more to come.

Note the large number of stock­holders who are not individuals but institutions. Every major church body owns shares of stock in indus­try, but in some statistics a denomi­nation counts as but one stock­holder. Several thousand colleges own stock, but each is counted as one stockholder. Your local Bank and Trust Company is a stockholder on behalf of its thousands of depositors; every insurance company owns stock on behalf of its millions of policy holders; every pension fund is invested in stocks. Pension funds, including labor union funds, now own about one-third of the total value of all the stocks listed on the New York exchange. The unions have come to own so large a share of American industry that Peter Drucker refers to this phenomenon as "pension fund socialism." In short, nearly every American owns a chunk of the corporate wealth of America!

Now, it is true, of course, that there are some enormously rich peo­ple in this country. What do they do with their money? Some of them spend their money foolishly, just as you and I would do if we were in their shoes. But any millionaire, who wants to preserve his fortune and pass it along to his children and their children, has no choice but to invest it in industries which produce the incredible variety of goods which flood the market places of America soliciting the patronage of the masses of consumers. No other soci­ety has ever allocated its rewards as generously, or so equitably.

Our present economic system, the system of free enterprise, has met our first two requirements; it has made us an affluent society produc­ing over and above our own needs, an abundance that we have gener­ously shared with the world; and every person who has participated in the production of goods and ser­vices shares equitably in the fruits of his production.

The third test has to do with an aspiration deeply rooted in human nature; we want to be free; we want the freedom to choose. We want to be free to worship in the church of our choice, to choose our own schools, to read freely and speak our minds. We want to be free to be ourselves, even if this is to practice what others regard as our harmless eccen­tricities. We want to be free to choose our profession or place of employment. We want solitude when we choose to be alone, and we want the freedom to choose our associates—which includes the right to dissociate. These are some of the demands of human nature itself, this is how God made us. As Jeffer­son put it, "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time." Therefore, the third demand we make of an economic order is that it manifest, in its operations, a crea­ture who is a freely choosing being.

By Acts of Choice

Man’s will is uniquely free. All other creatures—birds, beasts, fish, and so on—obey the laws of their nature willy-nilly. Only man has the capacity to disobey the deep mandates of his being. Ortega, the great Spanish philosopher, re­marked that the tiger cannot be de-tigered but the human being is al­ways in danger of being de­humanized. It is by acts of will, by acts of choice, that man is hu­manized; and this decision pro­cess, in the nature of the case, must be engineered by the individual concerned—by an act of inner re­solve. Each person is self-con­trolling, he is in charge of his own life; and if a person refuses to as­sume responsibility for himself no one can exercise this role by proxy, from the outside.

The free society is our natural habitat; freedom accords with human nature, and the tactic of freedom as it applies in the economic sector is capitalism, the market economy. The economy is free when the productive activities of men re­spond sensitively to the needs of consumers, as these needs manifest themselves in people’s buying habits. It is true, of course, that when people are free to spend their money as they please they will often spend it foolishly—other people, that is! They’ll make mistakes. But isn’t that one of the important ways we learn in life, by being free to make mistakes, picking ourselves up every time we fail and standing a bit taller every time we succeed?

The biggest mistake of all is to persuade ourselves that we can avoid the little mistakes people make in a free society by adopting a planned economy. A centrally planned nation is necessarily a command society. Individual per­sons are no longer free to make their own decisions, their private plans must be cancelled whenever they conflict with the overall political plan. This is a giant step along the road to serfdom.

No Guarantees

To have economic freedom does not, of course, mean that you will be assured the income you think you deserve, or the job to which you think you are entitled. Economic freedom does not dispense with the necessity for work. Its only promise is that you may have your pick from among many employment oppor­tunities, or go into business for yourself. And as a bonus the free economy puts a multiplier onto your efforts, to enrich you far beyond what the same effort returns you under any alternative system.

The American economic sys­tem—free enterprise, capitalism, the market economy, call it what you will—has never been as free as the believer in the free society would wish. But it aspires toward freedom, as do most citizens of our country; and our economy has indeed been freer than the economies of other nations. But despite the restrictions and controls, our relatively free economy has (1) delivered goods and services efficiently; it has (2) allo­cated rewards equitably; and (3) it does expand opportunities for per­sonal choice in society.

There is one final point. Ameri­cans are basically a religious people who try to bring moral values to bear on the issues of public life. Does a person have to put aside his reli­gious and moral values while en­gaged in the sordid business of mak­ing a living—as some misguided voices declare? Or is there, as I be­lieve, a vital relationship between market place and altar? No man’s judgment can rise above his under­standing of the facts; and as I have pointed out, there is gross misun­derstanding of the nature of busi­ness and the economy—especially, it seems, among those given to pro­nouncing moral judgments!

Biblical religion has at least three important and relevant criteria for judging social policy:

(a) the idea of justice voiced by the Old Testament prophets;

(b) the New Testament ideal of the sacredness of persons (i.e., Rights endowed by the Creator); and

(c) the Protestant emphasis on the importance of personal deci­sion—you are closed to God’s grace until you decide to open yourself up.

Put these ingredients together in the proper proportions—justice, the sacredness of persons, and the necessity of choice—and you have the free society. The political struc­tures of a free society are designed to assure the inviolability of every per­son. They maximize his opportunity to pursue his personal goals, and they cultivate an economic order that is guided by consumer demand. This was the social goal envisioned by the eighteenth-century Whigs, the men we refer to as the Founding Fathers. What they founded was prepared for by eighteen centuries of tutelage in biblical religion.

Questions Concerning the Morality of Capitalism

This may sound good, the critic tells us, but doesn’t the psychology of capitalism take the wraps off greed, and doesn’t capitalism ele­vate money-making to the chief end of man? And didn’t Jesus condemn wealth?

The answer to all three questions is No. As my first witness I call upon the eminent sociologist, Max Weber, and quote from his celebrated book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. "The impulse to acquisition, pursuit of gain, of money, of the greatest possible amount of money, has in itself noth­ing to do with capitalism. This im­pulse exists and has existed among waiters, physicians, coachmen, art­ists, prostitutes, dishonest officials, soldiers, nobles, crusaders, gam­blers, and beggars. It should be taught in the kindergarten of cultural history that this greed for gain is not in the least identical with capitalism, and is still less its spirit." Greed is a human frailty, to be condemned where found and overcome if possible. It is not the exclusive vice of any class or occupa­tion. In any event, it has nothing to do with the efficient production of goods and services in the capitalist order and their equitable distribu­tion.

My second witness is the eminent theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr. Late in life, after being converted away from Socialism, Niebuhr made a sage comment on the profit motive. Even the minister is economically motivated, he wrote, "when he moves to a new charge because the old one did not give him a big enough parsonage or a salary adequate for his growing family."

We can better understand Jesus’ attitude toward material posses­sions if we contemplate a seeming paradox: Jesus had harsh things to say about the three R’s; the three R’s in this case being Religion, Righ­teousness, and Riches! We learn from the Gospels that something which resembles religion, but which is ritualistic and external, may im­munize us against the real thing, which is inward and spiritual.

Which of us does not feel, at times, the exasperation which caused a member of Parliament to blow his top and say: "Thank God for the Church of England; it’s all that stands between us and Chris­tianity!" And by the same token, perfunctory righteousness—Phar­isaism—may harden the heart and beget an uncharitable spirit. Riches, too, may pose a peril; but this is a matter of degree only, for it is just as common to be infected with a false philosophy of material pos­sessions by a thousand dollars as by a million. Avarice is a common trait in all cultures and at every economic level. There are misers everywhere, and a miser is one who puts his trust in riches, and in so doing he treats means as an end.

This is the point of Jesus’ parable of the rich man whose crops were so good that he had to build bigger barns. This good fortune was the man’s excuse for saying, "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years! Take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry." There is a two-fold point in the parable; the first is that nothing in life justifies a man in assuming this attitude; we must never stop growing. It has been well said that we don’t grow old, we become old by not growing. The second point is that a material windfall may tempt a man into the error of quitting the struggle for the real goal of life. Jesus condemned the man who put his trust in riches, who "layeth up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God." Which is not the same as condemning material possessions per se, or wealth held under proper stewardship.

Life is probative; our three score years and ten are a test run. As St. Augustine put it, "We are here schooled for life eternal." And one of the important examination ques­tions concerns the economic use of the planet’s scarce resources and the proper management of our material possessions. These are the twin facets of Christian stewardship, and poor performance here will result in dire consequences. As Jesus put it, "If, therefore, you have not been faithful in the use of worldly wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?"

Economics, the science of means, needs religion, the science of ends. To inflate a means into an end is idolatry. In sober truth, no economic system can be anything more than a means. The ends for which life should be lived take us into another dimension, into the domain of our moral and religious life. As created beings we are designed to achieve a transcendent end: "Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee." But if we are to live as we should live during this life, we must be free; and one of the imperatives of the free life is freedom of economic enterprise.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Humane Values and the Free Economy

One thing Suttle and I completely agree on is the moral capacity and worth of the individual. Suttle admits this was neglected in the book, though my guess is that no honest reader would assume Suttle believes otherwise. Any Christian who engages issues of justice in a book obviously attributes moral worth to every individual.

The pushback comes, however, from the voluntaristic element inherent in what I quoted from Norman Horn’s review of Opitz. Suttle writes, “I don’t think our inclination is a factor in terms of what it means to be an individual/person. Our inclination toward being a hermit or social creature is secondary to the fact that we are born vulnerable and dependent creatures.” Further, he writes, “Our essential connected-ness is in our nature… But our involvement in humanity is not voluntaristic.”

There are two concepts here that are at play: “humanity” and “community.” It’s quite possible brevity prevented clarity in my critique. Let’s try it this way: because God created us for community, rejecting it is to deny ourselves participation in the fullness of the human experience. Yet what makes that human experience meaningful depends on the extent to which individuals are free to make commitments to the communities they find valuable. Jesus’ call to follow him implies openness and the possibility of rejection. The hermit is free to be left alone, damned as he might be. But there is no real community by forcing hermits to “belong.”

I find it rewarding that Suttle feels he can find common ground with many types of people from all over the political spectrum. I’ve been hard pressed to find a single social justice advocate who will even entertain the thought that libertarianism and social justice are possible bedfellows. Yet Suttle seems open: “Libertarianism and social justice are not fundamentally opposed to one another.” I hope this conversation can continue!

As a pastor, Suttle asks some really good reflective questions, and in doing so makes some subtle praises for our site, libertarianchristians.com. The outstanding pragmatic question is this one: “Does our society possess the kind of virtues necessary to make self-governing under a more libertarian view work? Is our society too selfish for that?” The short answer is, “No, our society does not. Yes, it is too selfish.” But here’s the follow-up: “If this is indeed the reality, what does this say about the makeup of social justice in our society today?”

Is it truly social and is it truly just when the nature of society itself is governed from the top down by a concentrated set of powers? I’m fairly certain that God is pleased when poor people are merely fed, but my strong hunch is that the command to love the poor has a broader goals: the harmonic relationships of those living in community. It is tremendously difficult to choose to love and serve those who have nothing. It isn’t something we ought to outsource to a single entity forcing us to do it anyway. “Your hearts are far from me” comes to mind as a relevant verse from the Old Testament.

But what lies behind this question is a basic fear, one that I’m likewise a bit nervous to admit. We’re not dealing with software that runs like it’s been programmed. We’re not dealing with sheep who simply follow the one in front of it. We’re dealing with people who have ends with means different from each other which causes conflict. For most people—especially those who raise an eyebrow at the market—it takes a major amount of faith to just “let the market do it’s work.” (Thomas Sowell says he doesn’t have faith in the market, he has evidence. But that’s another article!) The market is full of sinful human beings, some who won’t blink at harming others to achieve those ends. It’s natural to be nervous, but the mechanisms libertarians favor are not “anything goes,” but a method to channel our energy to “get what we want at others’ expense” by requiring us to serve one another. The oft-chided “invisible hand” isn’t just some voodoo result of any and every market, but a shorthand way of saying, “Look at the progress that happens when people are required to trade rather than plunder!”

Suttle includes liberty, justice, and equality as some of the virtues of the Kingdom of God that are compatible with libertarianism. His concern, it seems, are the other virtues that seem to “run counter to the libertarian stream”: mutuality, self-sacrifice, self-emptying, vulnerability, enemy love, refusal of violence, peace, economic justice, social justice.

Perhaps the brand(s) of libertarianism Suttle has been exposed to have been too bold in purpose so as to obscure the breadth of the philosophy of liberty. An applied philosophy of liberty is not one which directly espouses the virtues of self-sacrifice, self-emptying, vulnerability, or enemy love; but neither would it exclude their existence. The presence of liberty is alone insufficient to provide these qualities in individuals. But we would be mistaken to believe that a philosophy of liberty runs counter to them. Those who can truly be sacrificial, self-emptying, and enemy-loving have found true freedom in the will to be more than those who simply refrain from aggression (the bare minimum of liberty).

The refusal of violence (oustide of self-defense) is a common theme for libertarians, with peace being the benchmark of a libertarian social framework. I’m confused that Suttle would include these as candidates of counter-libertarian virtues. If by “peace” we mean the shalom of God, then liberty is the starting point by which people can begin to grasp real social peace. To have inherently divisive social conflict through the political mechanism is no way to begin to establish a true peace in society.

That leaves us with mutuality, economic justice, and social justice. I’ll have to ask Suttle to explain what he means by mutuality and economic justice. As for social justice, I’ll respond simply: without liberty, social justice is but a shadow of genuine social harmony, for it cloaks itself in the language of outcomes without care for the morality of the means. How can justice be considered “social” when conformity is mandatory?

The questions Suttle raises are important for libertarian Christians to consider. Suttle himself seems open enough to making friends with libertarians, especially those who claim the name of Christ. I hope a dialogue will continue between us as we seek mutual understanding of our beliefs and goals.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Responding to Tim Suttle

Politically and culturally, we saw many things to distress us. War, economic destruction, creeping statism, loss of liberty – it only seemed to get worse throughout the year. Nonetheless, we also continue to see good signs ahead. The younger generation of libertarians is rising up and making a difference, we see it in groups like Libertarian Longhorns and Students for Liberty. The Ron Paul 2012 campaign is clearly having an impact. Something is happening, and we have yet to see how events will unfurl.

2011 was also a big year for LibertarianChristians.com, but I am absolutely certain that 2012 will be even bigger. The presidential election is an opportunity to reach out like never before to Christians desperately searching for an alternative to the behemoth state. LCC is being seen around the world like never before. I’ve never seen so much activity and discussion here and on social networks like Facebook and Twitter about Christianity and libertarianism. I’m committing myself to being extra-vigilant this year to bring you the best content I can offer, so that we can all keep building on this momentum.

I hope that you find a way this year to make a difference for Christ and for liberty. I hope especially that you find opportunities to show Christians the rightness and value of true political liberty.

What do you want to do this year? What do you want to see LCC do? Let us know in the comments…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Welcome to 2012, Christian libertarian friends

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

What you can do to promote liberty

Do Christians have rights? Is it proper for them to assert their rights as Americans? If so, to what extent should they be asserted? The Bible teaches that Christians are not to claim their rights against each other, but rather to be defrauded if necessary (1 Corinthians 6:7-8; 1 Thessalonians 4:6). It is part and parcel of being a Christian to prefer others and to esteem others better than themselves (Romans 12:10; Philippians 2:3-4). They are even called upon to suffer abuse from unbelievers when they can bear testimony of Christ to them and promote peace (Matthew 5:38-42; Romans 12:17-21). The Christian life is, in reality, one of cross-bearing and suffering (Mark 8:34; Philippians 1:29). Therefore, in a sense, Christians have no rights—or at least they are commanded to not exercise them in most circumstances—for the sake of God’s glory, the love of God’s people, or for the purpose of bearing testimony to God’s grace in them.

Nevertheless, if Christians are called to live in civil society and participate in its trade and institutions, then they must adhere to social customs. The Bible gives every indication that Christians are to work, buy, sell, give of their earnings, hold property, pass on an inheritance, and enter into commercial agreements with others. Thus, Christians need to both assert and comply with social customs for economic cooperation. Those customs include establishing and maintaining political and personal rights and liberties, assigning duties to government to protect rights and obligations on each other to respect them.

When Christians have a say in determining what rights will be concluded as “self-evident” it makes sense for them to base their recommendations on God’s word. Accordingly, the Founders originated a basis for claiming rights to life, liberty, and property in God’s revelation to man as a means by which sinful men would be able to dwell together in peaceful cooperation in economic and social spheres. By establishing the civil rights of men, and limiting the scope of government to protect those rights against predators, the Founders (and Christians) became peacemakers in the world. They fulfilled the mandate of love toward one another (as outlined in the New Testament) and to the society in general (Galatians 6:10). “Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (James 3:18).

Although no civilization is without its imperfections, it is clear that the most peaceful, generous, and cooperative civilizations have been those which exalt private property rights, esteem life highly, and prize liberty. Christian commitment does not preclude the use of law and order in business or social behavior. Christians understand the sinful nature of men and thus understand, in the words of Jefferson, “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Absent private property rights, liberty, and the rule of law, history bears witness of the tragedy that will ensue under collectivist and totalitarian systems: war, chaos, destruction of property, murder, mayhem, poverty, and environmental degradation. By asserting fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property, Christians demonstrate the goodness of God in the world and sow peace and prosperity for men. To do the opposite would be to sin—harming their neighbors by worsening their terrestrial misery (Romans 13:10). Conceptually, being “ stewards of the mysteries of God” ( 1 Corinthians 4:1) and being “good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10) includes not only the Gospel itself but also in caring for all of the works of God that promote His kingdom and peace in the world.

But should Christians forever advocate the same set of rights promulgated by the Founders? Yes, they should! Those rights are derived from the unchanging precepts of God’s word and His attributes. But does the existence of democratic processes alter the nature of the action of government agents? In other words, can popularly elected rulers violate fundamental rights with immunity? For example, are extortion and abortion cleansed (i.e., no longer wrong) because they have been approved by a referendum or decreed by a ruler elected under democratic processes? After all, since we have representative government in America, some claim that Christians are precluded from chafing against legislation or decrees by disobeying edicts. Yet, clearly, for the Christian it is “self-evident” that the precepts of God’s word trump any of the political and social concoctions of men. A society based on adherence to His principles will lead to the “great society” rather than the failed proactive policies of rulers whose philosophy vies against such principles. At the end of the day, the opinions of all the rulers and philosophers of the world regarding rights and morality are of little worth compared to the decrees of the God of the universe.

Were our American Christian forefathers, such as the strong and devout Christian Stonewall Jackson, wrong in asserting their rights to self-defense of life, liberty, and property? They certainly were not. They were not merely fighting for “their” rights. They were fighting to preserve a system of social cooperation. Many endeavored to engender peace and prosperity “to them and their posterity”, for the glory of God, for the benefit of the church, and for the expansion of the testimony of Jesus Christ in the world. They were not wrong in performing acts of love and sowing the seeds of peace. On the contrary, Christians today do wrong by refusing to stand up to tyrants and by allowing this world’s system to dominate their hearts, minds, and social or economic interactions.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on July 20, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

What “rights” do Christians have?

The great political battles of the modern world have been fought around certain key words, one of which is Equality. The watch­words of the French Revolution, you recall, were “Liberty, Equal­ity, Fraternity.” Talleyrand got fed up with this slogan and once remarked that he’d heard so much talk about fraternity that if he had a brother he’d call him cousin!

There’s a sound reason for Talleyrand’s adverse reaction to the idea of brotherhood. The hu­man capacity for affection is lim­ited and it is selective. The de­mand for unlimited brotherliness puts human nature under a strain; it generates a backlash in the form of the either/or mood of the revolutionary who puts a gun to your head and says: “Be my brother, or I’ll kill you!” Sane so­cial living forbids murder; it strives after justice; and it re­serves brotherliness and love for family and friends.

Real friendship, even within a limited circle, is a genuine achieve­ment. Recall the words of La Bruyere, writing in the middle of the seventeenth century: “Some ask why mankind in general do not compose one nation, and are not contented to speak one lan­guage, to live under the same laws and agree among themselves to have the same customs and the same worship; whilst I, seeing how contrary are their minds, their tastes and their sentiments, wonder to see even seven or eight persons living within the same walls under the same roof and making a single family.”

We don’t have the word Fraternity in our political heritage, but the idea of Equality occupies a prominent spot. Our Declaration of Independence reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” Note well that the men who pre­pared this document did not say that “all men are equal”; they did not say that all men are “born equal”—both propositions being obviously untrue. They said “cre­ated equal.”

Now, the created part of a man is his soul or mind. Man’s body is compounded of the same chemical and physical elements which go into the make-up of the earth and its creatures, but there is a men­tal and spiritual essence in man which sets him apart from nature—his soul or psyche. It is an arti­cle of faith in our religious tradi­tion that the soul of each person is precious in God’s sight what­ever the individual’s outer cir­cumstances; and equality before the law is implicit in this premise—the idea of one law alike for all men because all men are one in their essential humanness.

But right here the likeness ends; human beings are different and unequal in every other way. They are alike in one respect only; they are equal before the law. Equality before the law is the same thing as political liberty viewed from a different perspec­tive; it is also justice—a regime under which no man and no order of men is granted a political li­cense issued by the state to use other men as their tools or have any other legal advantage over them. Given such a framework in a society, the economic order will automatically be free market, or capitalism. We are speaking now of the idea of equality in a politi­cal context. Later I shall deal with the opposing concept of economic equality, which is incompatible with limited government and the free market.

Equal Justice Before the Law

Political equality is the system of liberty, and its leading features are set forth in Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address: “Equal and exact justice to all men, of what­ever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none…. freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus;” and so on.

The idea of political equality—equal justice before the law—is a relatively new one. It did not exist in the ancient world. Aristotle opened his famous work entitled Politics with an attempted justifi­cation of slavery, concluding his argument with these words: “It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right.”

Plato wished to see society con­structed like a pyramid. A few men at the top wielding unlimited power; then descending levels of power—the men on each level being bossed by those above and bossing, in turn, those below. On the bottom are the slaves, who outnumber all the rest of society. Plato knows that those in the lower ranks will be discontented with their subservient position, so he proposes to condition them with a “noble lie,” as he calls it. “While all of you in the city are brothers, we will say in our tale, yet God in fashioning those of you who are fitted to hold rule mingled gold in their generation,… but in the helpers silver, and iron and brass in the farmers and other craftsmen.” Fraudulent theories of this sort are invented by men who suspect gold in their own make-up!

Hinduism provides a contem­porary example of a system of privilege. The highest caste in Indian society is the Brahmin caste; the lowest caste is the Sudra. In between are the Kshat­riya and Vaisya castes—warriors and merchants, respectively; out­side the caste system altogether are the Untouchables. Men are born into a given caste, and that is where they stay; that’s where their ancestors were, and that’s where their descendants will be. There is no ladder leading from one level in this society to any of the others. Hinduism justifies these divisions between men by the doctrine of reincarnation, ar­guing that some are suffering now for misdemeanors committed dur­ing a previous existence, while others are being rewarded now for earlier virtue. This outlook breeds fatalism and social stagnation. The eminent Hindu philosopher and statesman, S. Radhakrishnan, defends the caste system. He lik­ens society to a lamp and says, “When the wick is aglow at the tip the whole lamp is said to be burning.”

Our Western Heritage

Politics rests upon certain as­sumptions in metaphysics, and we make different metaphysical as­sumptions than do the Greeks and Hindus. In other words, we have a different religious heritage. Our religious values come from the Bible. Christianity was introduced into the ancient world, and it has had important political conse­quences. We take personal liberty for granted and regard slavery as artificial because of nineteen cen­turies of emphasis on the worth of the individual soul. The soul of man was a battleground on which were thrashed out the issues of good and evil. The individual was held responsible for the proper ordering of his soul; that is, he had the gift of free will. His sal­vation was neither automatic nor guaranteed; it hinged on a series of voluntary decisions, choices freely made.

It takes a while, centuries some­times, for a new idea about man to seep into the habits, laws, and institutions of a people and shape their culture. It was not until the eighteenth century that Adam Smith came along and spelled out a system of economics premised on the freely choosing man. Smith referred to his system as “the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice.” The European so­ciety of Smith’s day was, by con­trast, a system of privilege; it was an aristocratic order.

Control by Conquest

England’s aristocratic order did not arise by accident, but through conquest; it may be traced back to the Battle of Hast­ings in 1066 and the Norman in­vasion. William of Normandy had a claim, of sorts, to the English throne, a claim which he validated by conquering the island. Having established his over lordship of England he parceled out pieces of the island to his followers as pay­ment for their services. In the words of historian Arthur Bryant, “William the Conqueror kept a fifth of the land for himself and gave one-quarter to the Church. The remainder, save for an insig­nificant fraction, was given to 170 Norman and French followers—nearly half to ten men.”¹

This redistribution of England’s territory was, of course, at the ex­pense of the Anglo-Saxon resi­dents who were displaced to make room for the new owners. The new owners of England from William on down were the rulers of Eng­land; ownership was the comple­ment of their rulership, and the wealth they accumulated sprang from their power and their feudal holdings. That is to say, they did not obtain wealth by satisfying consumer demand. Under the sys­tem of liberty where the economic arrangements are free market or capitalistic, the only way to make money is to please the customers. Under any alternative system, you make money by pleasing the poli­ticians, those who hold power. Either that, or you wield power yourself.

This was a fine system—from the Norman viewpoint; but the Anglo-Saxon reduced to serfdom viewed the matter quite differ­ently. It was obvious to the serf and the peasant that the reason why they had so little land was because the Normans had so much; and, because wealth flowed from holdings of land, the Anglo-Saxons reasoned correctly that they were poor because the Nor­mans were rich! It is always so under a system of privilege, where those who wield the political power use that power to enrich them­selves at the expense of other peo­ple. It makes little difference whether the outward trappings are monarchical, or democratic, or bear the earmarks of Orwell’s 1984; in a system of privilege, political power is a means of ob­taining economic advantage.

Keeping the Peace

When our forebears wrote that “all men are created equal,” they threw down a challenge to the system of privilege. They believed that government should keep the peace—as peacekeeping is spelled out in the old-fashioned Whig-Classical Liberal tradition. This preserves a free field and no favor—which is the meaning of laissez-faire—within which peaceful eco­nomic competition will occur. The term “laissez faire” never meant the absence of rules; it didn’t im­ply a free-for-all. The term comes originally out of chivalry and was used on the jousting field to signal the beginning of a match. Two armored knights got ready to ride at each other and the cry of “laissez faire” meant, in effect, “You boys know the rules; may the best man win.” Government, under laissez faire, does not in­tervene positively to manage the affairs of men; it merely acts to deter and redress injury—as in­jury is spelled out in the laws. This is the system of liberty championed by present-day liber­tarians and conservatives.

Adam Smith’s “liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice” was never practiced fully in any na­tion, but what was the result of a partial application of the ideas of The Wealth of Nations? The results of abolishing political pri­vilege in Europe and starting to organize a no-privilege society with political liberty and a market economy were so beneficial that even the enemies of liberty pause to pay tribute.

R. H. Tawney, one of the most gifted of the English Fabians, was an ardent socialist and egalitar­ian. His most famous work is past affords the best example of the great multiplication of wealth which results from the release of individual human creativity under the system of liberty.

The Nature of Political Power

I’ve used the term “power” sev­eral times, so let’s note that the word “power” in this context re­fers to government. There’s only one genuine power structure in a given society, and that is the gov­ernment. Government possesses a unique, one-of-a-kind type of power, and unless the government deputizes or licenses some other person or agency no one in a given society may exercise the kind of power which government alone wields. We employ meta­phors when we speak of buying power or economic power. Govern­ment is the power structure. Only government can mobilize the police, the armies, the navies; only government can draft a young man to serve in Vietnam; only government can tax, and so on. The largest corporation in the land cannot force me to buy one of its products or work for it; I can ignore General Motors, but no one who chooses to live within these fifty states can ignore the real power structure—which is the political agency, government.

Under a monarchy, economic ad­vancement is obtained by pleasing the king or the queen. Royal fa­vorites lived well while enjoying the friendship of the ruler, but when they fell out of favor they sometimes lost their heads. The mass of people lived in what we would think of as poverty, and typically they lacked the guaran­tees of intellectual, religious, and civil liberties that we take for granted. Moreover, the entire na­tion from top to bottom lived quietly with the idea of economic stagnation; no one thought in terms of a progressive increase of the stock of goods so that every­one would move gradually up the economic ladder—they thought in terms merely of redistributing the existing stock of wealth. No one thought of increasing the size of the pie; the idea was to obtain a bigger slice for one’s self—either by seizing it in a direct power grab, or as largesse by being a friend of the powerful. A similar sentiment—anti-economic in na­ture—prevails today.

The big domestic political issue is poverty. The nation has been geared to welfare measures ever since the New Deal, a generation ago; then in 1964 Congress opened the Office of Economic Opportun­ity and declared war on poverty. Indigence may be measured in various ways, but whatever else it is, indigence is a lack. A person who is poor would be better off if he owned a larger and finer house, had several extra suits and sport jackets in his closet, enjoyed tas­tier and more nourishing food plus an occasional drink. After improving the situation at the level of necessities he’d move ahead to the amenities—to recre­ation, a second car, air condition­ing, and so on.

Poverty Overcome by Production

The point to note is that people move out of poverty only as they command more of the things which are manufactured, grown, or otherwise produced. Poverty is overcome by production, and in no other way. If you are seriously concerned with the alleviation of poverty your concern for in­creased production must be equal­ly serious. This is simple logic.

But look around us in this great land today and try to find some­one for whom increased produc­tivity is a major goal. There are some able production men in in­dustry, but most established busi­nesses have learned to live com­fortably with restrictive legisla­tion, government contracts, the foreign aid program and our inter­national commitments. The com­petitive instinct burns low, and the entrepreneur who is willing to submit to the uncertainties of the market is a rare bird. And then there are the farmers. Agri­cultural production has taken a great leap forward in recent years, but no thanks to those farmers who latch onto the government’s farm program and accept pay­ment for keeping land and equip­ment idle. Union leaders claim to work for the betterment of the membership, but no one has ever accused unions of a burning de­sire to be more productive on the job. Politicians are not interested in increased industrial production. As a matter of fact, it might be said that the national government is continually—by its interven­tions—manufacturing poverty, and the whole country lives at a level lower than natural economic necessity would dictate.

An overall increase in the out­put of goods and services is the only way to upgrade the general welfare, but there is no clamor on behalf of increased productivity—only an occasional murmur. The clamor is for redistribution, for political interventions which ex­act tribute from the haves and bestow largesse on the have nots. Present day politics is based on the redistributionist principle: taxes for all, subsidies for the few. Its alleged purpose is to elevate the low income groups by depress­ing the wealthy. President John­son, addressing Congress in Jan­uary 1964, phrased it thus: “We are going to try to take all of the money that we think is unneces­sarily being spent and take it from the ‘haves’ and give it to the ‘have nots’ that need it so much.”

Several years earlier a theo­logian of considerable reputation, Nels Ferre, expressed similar sen­timents, but gave them a religious flavor: “All property is God’s for the common good. It belongs therefore, first of all to God and then equally to society and the individual. When the individual has what the society needs and can profitably use, it is not his, but belongs to society, by divine right.”³

The Role of the Market

The rage for redistribution is upon us, and we might multiply statements similar to the ones I have quoted from Mr. Johnson and Dr. Ferre. Those who es­pouse this viewpoint hold the ut­terly mistaken notion that the dis­tribution of rewards in a free market society, or capitalism, is analogous to the parceling out of loot to members of a robber gang, or the division of spoils after a pirate expedition. Actually, these things are as unlike as night and day; there is no comparison between them. In the free econ­omy, a man is rewarded to the degree that he pleases consumers.

Now, the market is not a magic instrumentality which comes up automatically with the right an­swer for every sort of question. The market is a sort of popularity contest; it tells us what people like; it’s an index of their prefer­ences. The market provides a very valuable piece of information, but it’s not the whole story. It’s im­portant for a shoe manufacturer to project an accurate guess as to whether women next season will prefer chunkies to wedgies; but a similar fingering of the popular pulse is out of keeping in the in­tellectual and moral realms—un­less one is a liberal intellectual! I refer to the proclivity of the current crop of opinion molders to ask: “What’s going to be the fashion in ideas this season?” One glaring example of this—a former professor of mine was a leading clerical spokesman for involving the United States in World War II; now he’s a co-chairman of SANE. This man has a good market in the intellectual realm, but of course he opposes the market in the economic realm.

The market is the only device available for serving our creatur­al needs while conserving scarce resources; but the market is no gauge of the truth or falsity of an idea. The market measures the popularity of an idea, but not its truth. Mises and Hayek are better economists than Samuelson and Galbraith but the market for the services of the latter pair is enor­mously greater than the popular demand for Mises and Hayek. Likewise in aesthetic questions. An entertainer’s popularity is no index of his musicianship, and a best selling novel may fall far short of the category of literature.

The market is simply a mirror of popular preferences and public taste; but if we don’t like what the mirror reveals, we won’t im­prove the situation by throwing rocks at the mirror! There is much more to life than pleasing the cus­tomer, but if the integrity of the market is not respected consumer choice is impaired and some peo­ple are given a license to foist their values on others. Permit this kind of poison to infect economic relationships and our ability to resist it elsewhere is seriously weakened.

We throw rocks at the mirror whenever we undertake programs of social leveling, aimed at eco­nomic equality. The government promises to aid the poor by redis­tributing the wealth. This is a power play, and it is the poor—generally the weakest members of society—who are hurt first and most in any power struggle. Fur­thermore, economic inequalities cannot be overcome by coercive redistribution without establish­ing political inequalities. Every form of political redistributionism widens power differentials in so­ciety; officeholders have more power, citizens have less; political contests become more intense, be­cause control and dispersal of great wealth is at stake.

Every alternative to the market economy—call it socialism or communism or fascism or what­ever—concentrates power over the lives and livelihood of the many in the hands of a few. The principle of equality before the law is dis­carded—the Rule of Law is in­compatible with any form of the planned economy—and, as in the George Orwell satire, some men become more equal than others. We head back toward the Old Regime—the system of privilege. Every state tends to create the means of its own support—com­prising citizens and pressure groups who realize their depend­ence on the state for such eco­nomic advantages as they enjoy. The court at Versailles was the symbol of this under the Old Regime; the symbol in our time is a deep freeze, a vicuna coat, a television set, the relief racket, a lush government contract, farm subsidies, predatory labor unions, or what have you.

Human beings are imperfect now and forever, and the societies we form exhibit all the imperfec­tions individuals display and more besides. There’s no way to achieve utopia; heaven on earth is an im­possible dream. But human beings will do better under the system of liberty than under any other social arrangement.

In the nineteenth century, as Tawney pointed out, the abolition of privilege got rid of slavery and serfdom; it turned the peasant into a human being. Furthermore, this was a comparatively peaceful century—between the Congress of Vienna and the First World War. Real wages doubled, redoubled, and doubled again. Diseases were diminished and people lived long­er; illiteracy almost disappeared, and people were freer in their daily lives than ever before.

Things were far from perfect, but they were more than tolerable—until a few people got the idea that human affairs could be per­fected if the lives of all men were put under political direction and control. This would create a vast power structure on top of so­ciety; but the fear of power was overcome by the thought that power, this time, was democratic and majoritarian in nature, and thus benign. The tragic fallacy here is that power obeys the laws of its nature, no matter what the sanction. Political power is invari­ably coercive, and if used wrongly destroys what it is set up to secure.

Fans of Lewis Carroll will re­member his poem, “The Hunting of the Snark.” Every time the hunters closed in on their quarry the snark turned out to be a boojum. Every time a determined group of people have concentrated power in a central government to carry out their program, the pow­er they have set up gets out of hand. The classic example of this is the French Revolution, which turned and devoured those who had started it.

It is not so much that power corrupts, as that power obeys its own laws. Our forebears in the old-fashioned Whig-Classical Lib­eral tradition were aware of this, so they sought to disperse and contain power. They chose politi­cal liberty, in full awareness that in a free society the natural dif­ferences among human beings would show up in various ways; some would be better off than others, but there would be no political inequality.

The alternative to the free economy is a servile state in which a ruling class enforces an equality of poverty on the masses. To embark on a program of economic leveling is like trying to repeal the law of gravity; it’ll never work, and trying to make it work defeats our efforts to attain rea­sonable goals.

—FOOTNOTES—

¹ Story of England, Arthur Bryant, Vol. I, p. 164.

² Religion and the Rise of Capital­ism, but in 1931 he wrote a book entitled Equality, arguing, in effect, that no one should have two cars so long as any man was un­able to afford even one. He wished to take from those who have and give to those who have not, in or­der to achieve economic equality.

³ Christianity and Society, p. 226.

Originally published in the September 1969 edition of The Freeman. Read more from the Edmund Opitz Archive.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Two Concepts of Equality

Samuel Smith wrote the words for "America" in 1832, while a student at andover Seminary. The fourth verse is virtually a prayer, beginning with the familiar words:

Our father’s God, to Thee, Author of liberty.

The prayer is addressed, not to some god in the Hindu pantheon, nor to the gods of the Medes and Persians, but to the God of the Bible, the God of our Judeo-Chris­tian heritage. What is unique about this idea of God, and in what sense is he the Author of liberty? Let’s go back a few thousand years. The common opinion in the ancient world — an opinion still prevalent — was that a god is use­ful to have around to sanction so­cial practices, to guarantee prosperity, and to insure victory in battle. When the gods were angry, you had a run of bad luck, so you had to butter them up until you changed their attitude. If a crop failed, the god in charge either responded to your incantations, or you fired him. If your tribe lost a battle, this signified the superior medicine of the victor’s gods, so you adopted them. The Victorian novelist, Samuel Butler, felt that many of his contemporaries still clung to such childish notions, which he satirized by declaring: "To love God is to have good health, good looks, good luck, and a fair balance of cash in the bank." Too many people, and not only in the ancient world, act as if they regard God as a sort of cosmic bellhop eager to run their celestial errands for them, while revealing the short cut to success and the secret of get-something-for-less schemes.

One God

The ancient Israelites were the first people to discard the notion of a god kept on tap for luck and tricks. They lapsed now and then, but were jerked up hard by their prophets, who proclaimed the God of righteousness and truth; these men saw the workings of God even in their own poverty and defeat. Theirs was not a kept god who could be worked on by magic to serve the devious ends of men. He was the God of religion who laid down the rules for an orderly uni­verse in which men, by learning and obeying the commands, earn their own way. This God cannot be bought or bribed — in contrast to the god of magic — and men see his handiwork in the preponder­ance of order, harmony, balance, and economy in the workings of the universe. This universe plays rough but fair; it can be trusted. Its trustworthiness, translated over into the material world, be­comes the natural sciences tracing cause and effect sequences and drafting laws to describe the workings of natural phenomena.

A stone falls because it has no choice in the matter; hydrogen cannot refuse to enter into a com­bination with oxygen under cer­tain conditions. There’s no free­dom at the level of physics and chemistry. But life comes onto the scene and adds a new dimension.

On the biological spectrum with an oyster, say, at one end, and a chimpanzee at the other, we note an increasing freedom in the higher forms of life, culminating in man. The universe is not ran­dom but intentional, and one of its intentions issues in a creature gifted with a novel kind of free­dom of choice.

Man appears on the scene, Na­ture’s wayward son. The eminent biologist, Lecomte du Noüy, broadly surveys the planetary scene and declares that "every­thing has taken place as if, ever since the birth of the original cell, Man had been willed."¹

Here, at last, is a creature so radically free, so insulated from the instinctual controls that guide animals, that he can defy the laws of his own being. Man’s will is free; all other creatures obey the laws of their nature, but he alone possesses that radical freedom which makes it possible for him to deny his Maker. We sometimes accuse tyrants of trying to play god, but this is not an apt meta­phor: God himself does not "play god"! We have the gift of an in­ner freedom so far-reaching that we can choose either to accept or reject the God who gave it to us, and it would seem to follow that the Author of a freedom so radi­cal wills that we should be equally free in our relationships with other men. Spiritual liberty, of the sort men have, logically demands conditions of outer and social liberty for its completion.

The goal of collectivism is the perfect adaptation of man to so­ciety and society to nature. We challenge this goal with the con­viction that every person has a destiny beyond society. He has a soul, for whose proper ordering he is responsible, not to society or to the state, but ultimately to God.

Inner Freedom

Such an understanding of the nature and destiny of man is the cornerstone of a free society. Whenever a significant number of people become aware of their inner freedom and its demands, they will have little trouble in estab­lishing the secular institutions of liberty in their society. They will limit government so that there will be no political invasions of the sacred prerogatives of individual persons; they will secure every person’s rightful property, and trust their economic problems to the market for solution. These things are in the realm of means, but they are indispensable means for shaping the right kind of so­cial conditions out of which in­dividual persons may emerge as society’s completion and fulfill­ment.

Man does not create himself, nor write the laws of his being; but man does make himself. And as he does, he begins to discover who he is and what he may be­come. "That wonderful structure, Man," wrote Edmund Burke, "whose prerogative it is to be in a great degree a creature of his own working, and who, when made as he ought to be made, is destined to hold no trivial place in the creation."

May we then seek to serve the Author of our liberty, in whose service we find our perfect free­dom.

Originally published in the January 1966 edition of The Freeman. Read more from the Edmund Opitz Archive.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

God: The Author of Liberty

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.B. 2020, the National Eyeball Allocation and Regulation of Sight (NEARSight) Act of 2011.

Our great nation was founded on the principles of liberty and equality. Without liberty, we can’t be equal. Without equality, we can’t have liberty. So when some Americans are treated unequally, it’s an assault on the liberty of each and every one of us. We have a sacred duty to those Founding Fathers who fought and bled for our freedom to bring equality to every American.

Some may say that we are free and we are equal, because we see freedom and we see equality everywhere. But do we? Sadly, not all of us see those things equally — because not all of us see equally well. It is to rectify this incredible injustice that I beg you to join me in using the full moral might of this government to bring equal sight to all. To do less than pass this legislation is to confess before all of us that you hate equality and that you hate liberty.

Most people in our great land have two functioning eyeballs, while some struggle to exist in a dreary and barren land devoid of color or light or hope. No, friends, it’s not Detroit that I speak of. It’s the land of blindness. Those with two eyes aren’t morally superior. They didn’t earn their eyeballs. No, it was just a cruel twist of fate that gave some people sight and others darkness. Many Americans have two eyeballs while others have just one or none at all. Clearly, a redistribution program, as detailed in the National Eyeball Allocation and Regulation of Sight (NEARSight) Act of 2011, is in order. And we are here today to bring this light and hope to those without sight and without hope.

So how will our great plan work? As outlined, passage of this bill would ensure that all Americans have at least one eyeball by taking from those who have two and giving to those who have none. This legislation will create a new Regulatory Eyeball Transfer and Implant National Agency (RETINA), which will have the full power to control who has eyes and who doesn’t. Once every American has one eyeball the remaining eyeballs will be rotated through the populace switching hosts on a regular six month cycle. Those who come out against this bill clearly have only their own interests at heart. They care little for other people. That these citizens cannot see the problem as clearly as those without eyes is as sad as it is ironic.

I do want to assure those who have asked that this bill includes a small provision that exempts members of Congress, their staffs and their families from this act. This small concession has been made in the name of national security, because we must always be vigilant in the protection of our citizens — and we need full sight to protect them.

This bill is an important step forward for the less fortunate. Passage of this bill will not only ensure at least one eyeball for every American, but provide jobs, save consumers money, and enhance our nation’s security. We’ll also get free cookies at the doctor’s office, and eye patches. Eye patches are cool.

I have a vision. A vision that one day all Americans will have vision. Or one eyeball, at least. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Federal Government will bring sight to the blind

I was blessed to grow up in a Christian home with parents who raised me and my siblings to work hard, care about those in need, and never feel entitled to that which isn’t yours. My parents provided a stable and secure home life where we were taught family values and sound theology, but it was always in my nature to question everything. Perhaps I never grew past the “Why?” phase of my toddler years, but I always had an incredulous attitude toward those in authority. Because of this I have always appeared to be a natural contrarian. If there is a status quo, I will question it. (As you can already see, I was well-suited to be a libertarian!)Throughout my life I’ve constantly sought ways to teach others through speaking or writing. I attended Bible college and graduated with a degree in Communications Ministries. In 2008 I received my Master of Divinity degree from Biblical Seminary, and I currently work at a well-known technology company. I’ve always looked forward to having a family so we could demonstrate Christ’s love to the world. Shiree, my best friend and wife, is a wonderfully gracious and loving companion. We spend lots of time talking about life, the universe, and everything. Our young children have a zest for life and their laughter often fills our house with joy.

After college I began reading more about how the gospel affects societies. I began to ponder how the “good news” to the world was to be carried out by Jesus’ followers. I discovered that the gospel was bigger than my personal salvation experience, and that if Christians were to be a blessing to the world, we must revolutionize it with the love of Jesus. So to learn more I read books and listened to sermons by people like N.T. Wright (my favorite theologian), Tim Keller (my favorite preacher), Brian McLaren (my favorite contrarian), and others who were committed to a gospel that produced the fruit of social change.

But while I was on board with the social justice movement and its theology, I was very unsettled by the practical solutions being proposed by its advocates. Something seemed amiss. It seemed as though their solutions were neither viable nor ethical; sometimes they seemed unchristian. So with questions about social justice swirling in my head, a still small voice said, “If you’re going to understand how to change the world, you have to learn how the world works. And to do that, you need to learn some basic economics.”

My first book about economics was Bob Murphy’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. Then I read Thomas Sowell and Ron Paul, who—like thousands of young libertarians—marched me straight into the Mises Institute (virtually, of course) and other organizations like it. If it were not for the free podcasts and reading materials available from places like mises.org and fee.org, I’d probably have given up the “dismal science.” Though I had been naturally predisposed toward liberty, the Austrian school captured my passion for liberty in all areas of life. I also discovered that economics was the missing component to proposing truly just social solutions.

I am not passionate about liberty  because I believe every politician is an evil bandit or because I simply want to be left alone. It’s not me I’m worried about. I’m not poor, I have no debt, and I have talents in many areas capable of providing income for my family. And even after the State takes 20% of my income, I can still make ends meet. Just about every reason why I’m passionate about liberty has to do with everyone else. In order to advocate for social justice in the world, being a libertarian is the only way for me to not violate the rights of one group while fighting for the rights of another.

If there were a specific passion I have right now, it is to help convince those interested in social justice to embrace liberty and to see the benefits to society that come by embracing and promoting freedom to all. Libertarians, I believe, have the truly progressive ideas.

I also have been blogging my thoughts for over six years at LiveLoud.net.

Read more of Doug Stuart’s posts at LibertarianChristians.com.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Meet Doug Stuart

Libertarianism Today, by Jacob Huebert. This is one of my favorite new books, and is arguably the best explanation of libertarianism set in the context of the 21st century that we have to date. My review of this book is forthcoming…

Nullification, by Thomas Woods. The idea of nullifying Federal law at the state level has really taken hold in the past year, and Tom has done a great job of explaining its use in American history with this excellent book. Go forth and nullify!

Foundations of Economics: A Christian View, by Shawn Ritenour. Hey homeschoolers, are you looking for an basic economics text that you can go through with your high-school age kids? Shawn’s book is what you want. Easier than Human Action or Man, Economy, and State, and far better than that garbage you’ll get from Bob Jones University Press. (No offense intended, but they really don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to political economy.) That being said, it’s not just for high-school students. This is Austrian economics at its best.

Faith and Liberty, by Alejandro A. Chafuen. A classic that every Christian libertarian should read.

Human Action (the Pocket Edition), by Ludwig von Mises. Make sure that Austrian in your life is never without some Mises. At $10, this version is hard to beat for affordable access to one of the greatest books on economics of all time. You can also get this directly from the Mises Institute Store. Coincidently, this is now the best-selling book at the Mises Institute of all time!

Disciple of Liberty, by Jason Rink. Many of our Christian friends are beginning to realize the corrupt nature of Government, and Jason’s short book really helps people to understand that being “conservative” doesn’t cut it. Plus, you can now get the ebook version for FREE until the end of 2010. How about that? (Note: You won’t find this on Amazon.) Check out my review of Jason’s book and see what you think.

The Road to Serfdom, by F.A. Hayek. Hayek’s works have surged in popularity over the last year, and this seminal work should be on every libertarian’s bookshelf.

How an Economy Grows, and Why it Crashes, by Peter Schiff. This book is great to give your friends who don’t understand what’s going on with the economy these days. Schiff explains how the market works in a way that everyone can enjoy, using humorous examples and solid principles to teach and entertain.

The Kingdom of God is Within You, by Leo Tolstoy. This marvelous work by Tolstoy is gripping. To see why, read my review.

Anarchy and Christianity, by Jacques Ellul. French philosopher Jacques Ellul had a way with words, and in this book he explains how he came to understand that Christianity and statism don’t mix. It’s challenging, interesting, and actually quite short. Read my review here.

Bonus: All us tech-lovers have been curiously watching the ebook reader and tablet computer wars emerging on the market over the last year. So if you are so inclined, don’t forget that an Amazon Kindle or iPad filled with the Mises Institute library and Christian Classics is clearly the coolest gift ever (hint hint anybody who loves me). You know, almost every book the Mises Institute publishes (and much more) is available to download for free as a PDF on their website. You could easily fill a flash drive with liberty PDF’s from the Mises Library and tons of classic theological texts from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library and Project Gutenberg.

Merry Christmas to all!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Top 10 Books for Libertarians–Christmas 2010 Edition