Archive for Murray Rothbard
Murray Rothbard wrote the following article for Liberty Magazine in 1990. It provides an interesting summary and perspective on the implications of millennialism upon the political landscape. Though this comes from a non-Christian author, I think it is instructive and insightful.
Christianity has played a central role in Western civilization and contributed an important influence on the development of classical-liberal thought. Not surprisingly, Christian beliefs about the "end times" are very important for us right now.
Christian Reconstructionism is one of the fastest growing and most influential currents in American religious and political life. Though the fascinating discussions by Jeffrey Tucker and Gary North (in the July and September issues of Liberty) have called libertarian attention to, and helped explain, this movement, to clarify Christian Reconstructionism fully we have to understand the role and problem of millennialism in Christian thought.
The problem centers around on the discipline of eschatology, or the Last Days, and on the question, How is the world destined to come to an end? The view that nearly all Christians accept is that at a certain time in the future Jesus will return to earth in a Second Advent, and preside over the Last Judgment, at which all those then alive and all the bodily resurrected dead will be assigned to their final places — and human history, and the world as we know it, will have come to an end.
So far, so good. A troublesome problem, however, comes in various passages in the Bible, in the Book of Daniel, and especially in the final book of Revelation, in which mention is made of a millennium, of a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth — the Kingdom of God on earth (KGE) — before the final Day of Judgment. Who is to establish that kingdom, and what is it supposed to look like?
Tags: Christian Right, fundamentalism, history, millennialism, millennium, Murray Rothbard, politics, premillennialism, theology
I have been asked often over the years when and how I came to be such an outspoken critic of war, the military, and the warfare state.
I have been writing about these evils since Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. My first article on the subject was "Eight Facts about Iraq." It was first published in an obscure monthly newsletter soon after the invasion of Iraq and then published by Lew Rockwell on January 2, 2004. My next piece, and first article for this website, was "Christianity and War," which appeared on October 29, 2003. Little did I know that it would turn into a book, now in its second edition, lectures, and the theme of scores of other articles. But my antiwar odyssey did not begin when Bush launched his unconstitutional, immoral, unjust invasion of Iraq. It goes back at least ten years before that dreadful event.
I grew up in sunny central Florida near Patrick Air Force Base. Although I live in central Florida now, for twenty-four years I lived in Pensacola, Florida – the home of the Blue Angels flight demonstration squadron and the "Cradle of Naval Aviation." I was once a conservative Republican – albeit a very libertarian-leaning one – with the usual respect for the military. If it seems to you that I am the most unlikely person to be such a critic of the military, then I agree with you.
Until the late 1980s, I had never really given the subject of the military much thought. It was about then that I began to read – where I have no idea – about how the United States had troops in over a hundred foreign countries. I thought this rather odd, unnecessary, and ridiculous.
The next influence I can recall is Pat Buchanan in 1991 criticizing Bush Sr. for invading Iraq the first time (the Persian Gulf War). This made a notable and lasting impression on me because I was reading Buchanan’s columns and knew he was a conservative Republican. Buchanan went on to write one of the most important studies of World War II ever penned, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (2008). I reviewed the book here.
It was sometime in 1993 or 1994 that I made the acquaintance of Lew Rockwell of the Mises Institute. I had stumbled across – where I have no idea – a reference to the Mises Institute publication called The Free Market. This was before LRC and before the Mises Institute had a website. I remember calling and requesting some copies of The Free Market, which were graciously sent to me through the mail. I went on to write for this publication, beginning in 1996. It was through articles in The Free Market that I was introduced to Murray Rothbard. This led me to the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, which I used to read at my mailbox the moment it arrived. It was then that I came to realize that I was more of a libertarian than a conservative. For me, it didn’t begin with Ayn Rand; it began with Murray Rothbard.
Some time in the mid 1990s, I came across an article – where I have no idea – critical of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For years I thought it might have been written by Doug Bandow, but he told me one time when I asked him that he can’t recall if he wrote it or not. This was my first exposure to historical revisionism. My analysis of World War II is "Rethinking the Good War."
In 2001, I began to reprint old books and articles as part of my Classic Reprints series. Two articles I came across in the late 1990s, which I reprinted in 2003 as the Classic Reprint titled Christianity and War, were from Baptist ministers writing in the Christian Review. The first article was called "Wickedness of War." It appeared, unsigned, in June of 1838. It was put online in October of 2002 here. The other article, by someone who called himself Veritatis Amans, appeared in September of 1847. Here I read things like:
War has ever been the scourge of the human race. The history of the past is little else than a chronicle of deadly feuds, irreconcilable hate, and exterminating warfare. The extension of empire, the love of glory, and thirst for fame, have been more fatal to men than famine or pestilence, or the fiercest elements of nature.
And what is more sad and painful, many of the wars whose desolating surges have deluged the earth, have been carried on in the name and under the sanction of those who profess the name of Christ.
It has not been till recently, that the disciples of Christ have been conscious of the enormous wickedness of war as it usually exists. And even now there are many who do not frown upon it with that disapprobation and abhorrence, which an evil of such magnitude as an unjust war deserves.
These articles confirmed for me that there was a conservative religious antiwar tradition that I had never been exposed to.
I have also been influenced along the way by some other individuals, organizations, and institutions, but as they would not wish to be associated with me, I will not mention them.
The immediate occasion of my first writing about the Iraq War was an e-mail that was forwarded to me in 2003 that defended U.S. foreign policy, the war in Afghanistan, and the yet-to-come war in Iraq. The bulk of the text was actually from a London newspaper editorial written in 2002.
Now, I normally ignore or at least don’t reply to e-mail that is forwarded to me. I made an exception in this case because I was so sick of the adoration that many Christians at that time had (and unfortunately still have) for George W. Bush. Here is what I wrote in reply:
Tony Blair is a jerk. George Bush is a jerk. The U.S. has no business sending one soldier to any foreign country, and especially to invade it (as is the case now). The U.S. has been meddling in every foreign country for 100 years. September 11 was a reaction to our stupid foreign policy. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Remember your physics classes?
Then I simply listed some quotes from the Founding Fathers:
Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none."
John Quincy Adams: "America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy."
George Washington: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
This unexpectedly ended up being forwarded to a Bush-worshipping, military-loving individual who had also been sent the original e-mail that I had been forwarded. The emotional God-and-country screed that I personally received as a result of my negative comments prompted me to begin writing about the Iraq War. And the rest is history.
I have now written twenty-five articles about the Iraq War. A war in which of 4,484 American soldiers died, not defending our freedoms or fighting "over there" so we don’t have to fight "over here," but unnecessarily, duped, in vain, and for a lie.
Although the war in Iraq is "officially" over, by the grace of God I will continue writing about the folly of war and the idolatry of military worship, and especially by Christians. With the war in Afghanistan now in its eleventh year, with drone attacks increasing, with the U.S. empire of troops and bases still garrisoning the planet, with U.S. foreign policy still as reckless, belligerent, and meddling as ever, and with the warfare state further eroding our civil liberties, there is a greater need than ever to press on.
Tags: bush, christian libertarian, Christianity, history, Laurence Vance, libertarianism, Murray Rothbard, politics, theology, war, war on terror
Robert Wenzel at the Economic Policy Journal has put together an excellent list of articles that can help anyone interested in libertarianism become proficient in the basics in just 30 days. Having read almost all of these essays in the past, I can attest to the quality of these articles and their capacity for informing someone about the essentials of liberty. I would probably add two more essays to the list, though. First, Rothbard’s seminal work The Anatomy of the State is what I like to call a “mental detox” from the perils of ingrained statism in our minds. I would additionally recommend Rothbard’s article Society Without a State as another essential piece.
Here is Robert’s description of his list, followed by links to every article he recommends:
The list below will not make anyone a scholar in libertarianism or an expert in Austrian Economics, it is designed to introduce to the busy individual the essence of libertarianism. There are 30 articles listed below. If one reads one article, slowly and carefully, per day, by the end of 30 days one should have a very strong grasp of libertarian principles and a basic understanding of Austrian economics. The list contains articles on a variety of topics, but does not cover all possible libertarian topics. More than anything it provides an overview of libertarianism and how libertarians think about issues of the day. The completion of the 30 days of reading should not be considered an ending point but rather the start of the beginning of more detailed study.
Day 1: The Task Confronting Libertarians by Henry Hazlitt
Day 2: The Fascist Threat by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Day 3: Free Economy and Social Order by Wilhelm Röpke
Day 4: The Peculiar and Unique Position of Economics by Ludwig von Mises
Day 5: What Soviet Medicine Teaches Us by Yuri Maltsev
Day 6: Economic Depressions: Their Causes and Cures by Murray Rothbard
Day 7: Is Greater Productivity a Danger? by David Gordon
Day 8: Taxation Methods Evaluated by Murray Rothbard
Day 9: Hitler Was a Keynesian by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Day 10: Seeing the Unseen by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Day 11: The Watermelon Summit by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Day 12: Equality and Inequality by Ludwig von Mises
Day 13: How to Think Like an Economist by Murray Rothbard
Day 14: The Health Plan’s Devilish Principles by Murray Rothbard
Day 15: Vices Are Not Crimes by Murray Rothbard (Read Lysander Spooner’s original essay here.)
Day 16: Repudiate the National Debt by Murray Rothbard
Day 17: The Fallacy of the ‘Public Sector’ by Murray Rothbard
Day 18: The Road to Totalitarianism by Henry Hazlitt
Day 19: The Many Collapses of Keynesianism by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Day 20: The Crippling Nature of Minimum Wage Laws by Murray Rothbard
Day 21: Who Owns Water by Murray Rothbard
Day 22: Defending the Slumlord by Walter Block
Day 23: The Freedom of Association by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr
Day 24: How to Help the Poor and Oppressed by Walter Block
Day 25: Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Day 26: Is There a Right To Unionize? by Walter Block
Day 27: What If Public Schools Were Abolished? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Day 28: Why Austrian? an interview with Robert Higgs
Day 29: Economics and Moral Courage by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Day 30: Do You Hate the State? by Murray Rothbard
Tags: Austrian School, economics, government, Henry Hazlitt, Lew Rockwell, libertarianism, liberty, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, society, statism
In this week’s podcast we get to hear from Laurence Vance on Religion and Libertarianism, the subject of his talk at the Austrian Scholars Conference 2011. This is a great talk to help you solidify how to present libertarianism to Christians, and even how to talk about Christianity to libertarian non-believers. Enjoy!
Download the podcast directly by clicking here.
Tags: Christianity, libertarianism, Murray Rothbard, theology
This talk was given at the 2011 Austrian Scholars Conference at the Mises Institute. Listen to the ASC presentation here.
I never met Murray Rothbard. I still remember the day when I received a postcard in the mail announcing that he had died. I think that he, an agnostic Jew, and I, a devout Christian, would have gotten along just fine since we shared a common enemy – the state. I still have the postcard and the admiration for Rothbard that I had sixteen years ago.
I think that libertarianism has reached the point where we can safely say that more than at any time in the last fifty years a great number of libertarians are religious people. It was twenty-three years ago – a time when many of us still identified ourselves as liberals or conservatives, and some of you were not old enough to know the difference – when Rothbard opined that "the libertarian movement, and the Libertarian Party, will get nowhere in America – or throughout the world – so long as it is perceived, as it generally is, as a movement dedicated to atheism." "Nock, Morley, Chodorov, Flynn et al. were not atheists," he continued, "but for various accidental reasons of history, the libertarian movement after the 1950’s consisted almost exclusively of atheists." "There is nothing inherently of wrong with this," explained Rothbard, "except that many libertarians have habitually and wrongly acted as if religious people in general and Christians in particular are pariahs and equivalent to statists." Just a few months before this, Rothbard had lamented that he was "getting tired of the offhanded smearing of religion that has long been endemic to the libertarian movement." "Religion," he said "is generally dismissed as imbecilic at best, inherently evil at worst."
Although I think that things have greatly improved, many libertarians today are no more accommodating of religion than those in Rothbard’s day. Even though many religious people perhaps deserve the disdain of libertarians because of their faith-based statism, religion itself certainly doesn’t. It was the nonreligious Rothbard who acknowledged that "the greatest and most creative minds in the history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious, most of them Christian."
The question I want to address today is simply this: Is libertarianism compatible with religion? Many libertarians say no, the two are not compatible. Some of them even consider religion to be a greater enemy of human liberty than the state, a proposition that Walter Block has debunked. Many religious people also say no, the two are not compatible. In the minds of some of them, libertarianism is just a synonym for libertinism, an erroneous idea that has also been debunked by Walter Block. (Is there any false notion about libertarianism that Walter Block hasn’t debunked?) Even some conservatives say no, the two are not compatible. Thomas Fleming, the editor of Chronicles magazine, considers the phrase "Christian libertarians" to be "as oxymoronic as Christian socialists."
Now, although I have some strong opinions about religion – and enough degrees in theology to make sure I offend the greatest number of people – what I personally believe about religion is totally irrelevant. The question of "Is libertarianism compatible with religion?" is a question that Walter Block or the most militant Randian could ask and answer without changing the content of this talk. What you personally believe about religion is also completely immaterial. Whether you think that a particular religion is the absolute truth that you would be willing to die for or that all religions are just a collection of myths and stories mixed with history doesn’t affect the importance of the question. In the end, people are going to side with their religion over the ideas of dead Austrian economists. It is therefore imperative that the question be answered.
Libertarians who ignore the question do so at their peril. If libertarianism is not compatible with religion, then we who believe that the principles of libertarianism are true, just, and right must engage in the futile task of trying to get people to abandon their religion to accept libertarianism. We would face the impossible task of destroying someone’s faith in his God and/or scripture before we could convince him of the truth of libertarianism. Now, you may be both a hard-core atheist and a libertarian, but as Rothbard warned: "We libertarians will never win the hearts and minds of Americans or of the rest of the world if we persist in wrongly identifying libertarianism with atheism. If even Stalin couldn’t stamp out religion, libertarians are not going to succeed with a few Randian syllogisms."
The title of my paper is no accident. I think religious people have more of a problem with libertarianism than libertarians have with religion. I think it is harder to convince a religious person that libertarianism doesn’t violate the tenets of his religion than to convince a libertarian that religion doesn’t violate the tenets of libertarianism. Although some libertarians deserve the disdain of religious people for their libertinism, I put most of the blame for the need for this talk on religious people because of their ignorance of both libertarianism and religion.
So, all that being said, my short answer to the question of whether libertarianism is compatible with is religion yes. But since it would not be enough just to say "I am religious, I am libertarian, so the answer to the question has to be yes, thank you and good day," my long answer is what follows.
In order to determine if libertarianism is compatible with religion we must first understand what libertarianism is. The world is full of mistaken notions about libertarianism. It is often misunderstood and mischaracterized by its opponents as discounting human nature and disdaining morality while being grossly naïve and overly utopian. We have all heard the standard clichés, usually out of the mouth of conservatives, religious or otherwise:
- Libertarians are for abortion.
- Libertarians are for drug use.
- Libertarians are against religion.
- Libertarians are against traditional values.
True, some libertarians might be for and against these things, but so might someone who is not a libertarian.
To get a proper perspective of what libertarianism really is, I turn to two of its greatest proponents: Murray Rothbard and Walter Block.
As described by Rothbard:
Libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. . . . Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.
And as explained by Block:
The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms.
In his seminal article "Libertarianism or Libertinism," Block compactly states the essence of libertarianism:
Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It [is] concerned solely with the proper use of force. Its core premise is that it should be illegal to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property without his permission; force is justified only in defense or retaliation. That is it, in a nutshell. The rest is mere explanation, elaboration, and qualification – and answering misconceived objections.
And in an article on plumb-line libertarianism, Block simply says: "Libertarianism is solely a political philosophy. It asks one and only one question: Under what conditions is the use of violence justified? And it gives one and only one answer: Violence can be used only in response, or in reaction to, a prior violation of private property rights." Clearly, libertarianism cannot be simplistically defined, like some Cato guys recently did, as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." And I should also say that libertarianism is a way of life, not a lifestyle.
Now that we know what libertarianism is, in order to determine if it is compatible with religion it we must next look at what we mean by religion. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism – these are all considered to be the world’s great religions. That, however, is where their similarity begins and ends. Although they do have some common tenets, the constraints of my talent and your time mean that we are going to have to narrow our scope.
The focus of my talk will therefore be on Christianity – but not just because I am a Christian. I suspect that most of the people listening to me right now, or who will listen to a recording or read a transcript of this talk in the future, would identify themselves as Christians. This is not surprising since a majority of Americans still identify themselves as Christians. This does not mean that America is a Christian nation – regardless of what Islamic countries and God and country Red-State Christian fascists think (who would have thought those two groups would be in agreement on anything). It does mean that if we are to reach the majority of Americans with the message of liberty that we should know whether libertarianism is compatible with their religion.
This is a significant year in the history of Christianity. The year 2011 is the four-hundredth anniversary of the publication of the Authorized Version, better known as the King James Version of the Bible because it was translated under the authority of King James I of England, beginning in 1604.
But regardless of which version of Bible is used, to the Christian, the Bible is the supreme authority, not the works of Mises or Rothbard, however highly we may regard them.
The Bible is not only the book that has had the greatest impact on Western Civilization; it is the foundation of Christianity. Christians may differ on certain aspects of their religion, but they are all united in their belief that the Bible is some kind of an authority. For a Christian to say otherwise is to reveal that his religion is really meaningless.
For a Christian to respect the Bible as some kind of an authority to the extent that he might reject libertarianism because of it generally means that such an individual holds to a high view of Scripture or a literal view of the Bible. Obviously, not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. The Bible contains idioms and figures of speech just like any other form of writing. And clearly, Christians have genuine differences of interpretation on certain portions of Scripture. A literal view of the Bible simply means that one accepts literally things in the Bible unless it is clear that they are not to be taken so. Miracles and other supernatural events actually happened. The virgin birth was an actual virgin birth. The resurrection of Christ is a real historical event. And most relevant to the question at hand, the precepts of Christ and the Apostles are meant to be obeyed and followed; they are not just opinions or suggestions to be accepted or rejected at will.
I only mention all this because some people wrongly believe that a literal view of the Bible is just a tenet of fundamentalist Christians. True, it is usually those who are the most ardent Bible literalists that are the toughest nuts to crack when it comes to libertarianism. It shouldn’t be that way, as I will argue in this talk, but that’s the reality. But if those who believe the Bible most literally can be persuaded of the compatibility of libertarianism with their version of Christianity, then those who take a somewhat less literal view of the Bible will not be far behind.
Let me reiterate that what you or I personally believe about the Bible is irrelevant. At issue is simply this: If libertarianism is compatible with a Christianity grounded on the authority of the Bible, then we have many possible "converts" to the cause of liberty and a free society. But on the other hand, if libertarianism is not compatible with a Christianity grounded on the authority of the Bible, then many Christian Americans, if they take their religion seriously, will be forever hostile or indifferent to liberty and a free society since the primary objections to libertarianism are moral.
So, why do I think that religion – in this case the Christian religion – is compatible with libertarianism? Let me give you two verses of Scripture, one from the Old Testament and one from the New, since Christians accept the authority of both:
Proverbs 3:30 – "Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm."
1 Peter 4:15 – "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters."
These verses, my friends, embody the essence of libertarianism. Don’t kill anyone, don’t take what’s not yours, don’t do anyone wrong, don’t stick your nose in someone else’s business, and don’t bother anyone if he hasn’t bothered you. Other than that do whatever you want – "Anything that’s peaceful," as Leonard Read says, for "ye have been called unto liberty," as the Apostle Paul says. The only caveats for Christians when it comes to liberty are to not let their liberty become a stumbling block to weaker brothers and to not use their liberty for an occasion to the flesh; that is, don’t be a libertine.
And you thought I was going to give you some complicated theological or philosophical argument. The Bible commands the Christian to devise not evil against his neighbor (Proverbs 3:29), love his neighbor as himself (Romans 13:9), show meekness unto all men (Titus 3:2), do good unto all men (Galatians 6:10), provide things honest in the sight of all men (Romans 12:21), and live peaceably with all men (Romans 12:18). If libertarianism is not compatible with these things then it is not compatible with anything.
The Christian is also told in the Bible:
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. (Colossians 3:17)
And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men. (Colossians 3:23)
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31)
Can a Christian assault someone in the name of the Lord Jesus? Can a Christian steal from someone heartily, as to the Lord? Can a Christian kill someone to the glory of God? I think the answer to these questions is obvious. And I also think it is apparent that libertarianism is compatible with the Christian religion.
But I would go a step further. Not only is libertarianism compatible with the most strict, most biblically literal form of Christianity, it is demanded by it. The Christian is enjoined in Scripture to go even beyond the non-aggression principle.
He is told, not to just turn the other cheek, but to "endure hardness" (2 Timothy 2:3), "endure afflictions" (2 Timothy 4:5), and "endure grief" (1 Peter 2:19). Revenge and retaliation for the Christian are not options. Some Christians get hung up on Romans 13 and end up making apologies for the state and its wars. It’s too bad they skipped over Romans 12:
Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. (Romans 12:14)
Recompense to no man evil for evil. (Romans 12:17)
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans 12:19)
Overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:21)
So, if libertarianism is more than compatible with the Christian religion, why do religious people – Christians – reject libertarianism? Why aren’t the majority of Christians libertarians instead of liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, and other assorted statists? Let me briefly give you some reasons. One, misconstruing libertarianism as a hedonistic philosophy instead of a political philosophy. Two, the poor presentation of libertarianism by libertarians. Three, wrongly thinking that libertarianism demands that one be pro-abortion. Four, morality; the two-fold failure to make a distinction between vices and crimes and crimes and sins. And five, social justice; wrongly applying to the government admonitions given to individuals.
I have developed these latter three points elsewhere. On abortion, see my LRC article "Is Ron Paul Wrong on Abortion?" On morality, see my Liberty magazine article "An Open Letter to My Fellow Christians," which is based on my 2006 ASC lecture "Christianity and Victimless Crimes." And on social justice, see my little book The Myth of the Just Price, which is the text of my 2008 Lou Church lecture of the same name in which I argue that there should be no government intervention in society or the economy.
I have tried in this talk to show why I believe libertarianism is scripturally compatible with religion. Is everything that has been done in the name of libertarianism compatible with religion? Of course not. But neither is everything that has been done in the name of religion compatible with libertarianism or even with religion. I think it is possible that it might someday be said not only that the greatest and most creative minds in the history of religion have been deeply and profoundly libertarian, but that the greatest and most creative minds in the history of libertarianism have been deeply and profoundly religious.
Tags: Bible, christian libertarian, Christianity, libertarianism, Murray Rothbard, theology