Libertarianism is founded on the belief that individuals have universal rights – specifically rights to life, liberty, and the possession of property. Despite fairly widespread recognition of these rights, their universal defense (that is, an explanation of why these rights apply at all times and in all places) can often be difficult to articulate. Three predominant sub-groups within libertarianism attempt such a defense, each with a unique approach. Consequentialist libertarians focus on utility, deontological libertarians look to nature, and Ayn Rand’s followers turn to what they term ethical egoism. At first glance, each of these seems to offer a reasonable defense of universal rights; but closer inspection reveals their flaws. Conscientious defenders of liberty realize that without a solid defense, protection and preservation of rights cannot be guaranteed. Fortunately, there is a firm defense to be found within the pages of God’s Word. In the Bible, God lays out laws and moral constraints, commanding humans to obey. In so doing, God establishes man’s basic human rights; these rights are based on morality and morality originates in God. Therefore, the origin and only solid defense of rights are found, not in utilitarian economics, nature, or egoism, but in the Word of God.

Consequentialist libertarians would disagree, believing they need only look as far as the utility of rights in order to find a suitable defense of them. They believe that rights of life, liberty, and property ownership should be protected because those rights lead to positive utilities, such as prosperity, efficiency, or happiness. The argument quickly falls apart, however, as soon as one realizes that there is no practical unit of measurement for utility. Neoclassical economists devised a unit called a utile, but this concept should be discarded as nonsense. The utility of rights is ultimately immeasurable because happiness, efficiency, and prosperity are impossible to quantify.  Even if one could measure a single individual’s happiness, prosperity, or efficiency, these things could not be aggregated across all people. The total utility of rights for a society is indeterminable, and therefore, the consequentialist defense must necessarily be discarded, at least insofar as using it as a solid defense of universal rights is concerned.

Deontological libertarianism’s argument is not quite so easily dismissed, though ultimately, it, too, is a flawed defense. Deontological libertarianism claims that rights are based on the moral principle of non-aggression: You leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone; to do otherwise would be immoral. This principle is derived from the concept of self-ownership, meaning that a person ought to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life. Murray Rothbard argued that self-ownership is a natural law because it is what is naturally best for man. In his essay, “Justice and Property Rights,” Rothbard writes:

Since the nature of man is such that each individual must use his mind to learn about himself and the world, to select values, and to choose ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives each man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation.

In Rothbard’s estimation, man’s end goal is “to survive and flourish,” and rights must be preserved and defended as a means to that end. If, however, there is a single case in which ignoring rights helps a man to survive and flourish, then logically, rights cannot be considered universal because they would no longer be applicable at all times and in all places or for all people. The unfortunate truth is that there are plenty of instances in which infringing upon another’s rights can secure one’s own survival. That is precisely how nature operates: survival of the fittest. If stealing or killing advances one’s position, then nature seems to encourage the decision to do so. Nature, then, can be deemed as neither the source of nor a defense of universal rights, as “rights” by nature’s standard are entirely situational. Because that which is situational cannot also be universal, it is necessary to conclude that situational rights are no rights at all.[i]

Ayn Rand’s view is even less helpful in the search for a defense of rights because her argument based on ethical egoism, like deontological libertarianism, actually contradicts the universality of rights. At first glance, Rand’s worship of life as mankind’s highest goal and value seemingly implies that rights are also to be valued. After all, life and happiness are relatively difficult to attain if one doesn’t first have the right to pursue them. However, an ethical egoist does not believe he is morally bound to respect the rights of others if doing so would end his own life or happiness. Thus, to the ethical egoist, rights are not universal, but situational. This is a frightening thought – it is impossible to expect one’s rights to be respected by others if there is no actual reason or motivation for others to do so. Without universal constraints on people’s interpersonal moral decisions, universal rights cannot be effectively defended.

That is where Scripture comes in. Scripture provides the moral constraints necessary to establish the existence of and the defense of universal rights. Three examples of interpersonal moral constraints laid out by God in the Bible are “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal,” and “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The first two laws[ii] establish individuals’ rights to life and to the possession of property. The third provides the moral constraint that allows men to expect their rights to be recognized by others. When a man loves his neighbor as he loves himself, he understands that any action that would be detrimental to himself should never be taken against others. No one wants to be harmed, therefore no one should initiate harm on another. The moral constraints against killing, stealing, and so forth, are primary ethical norms. They are, to coin a term, “non-rights.” Man does not have the right to kill or to steal. From these Biblical maxims, one can logically derive the universal rights of life, liberty, and property.

Whenever it is said that one ought or ought not to perform some action, there must be a reason or motivation to abide by such a statement. The motive to restrain oneself from infringing upon the recognized rights of others is simple and entirely self-serving. Simply put, abiding by ethical laws is in alignment with man’s most basic ethical goal: his own best interests. Generally speaking, a man will seek what is best for himself. Perhaps this means seeking utilities such as happiness and prosperity. Perhaps it means “to survive and flourish.” It stands to reason that as man’s creator, God is also aware of that which is best for man. Scripture declares that a right relationship with God should be man’s highest goal. A relationship with his Creator endows a man with fulfillment, wholeness, and happiness. A relationship with God sets man up to survive and flourish eternally. While mankind’s eternal salvation has been secured by the death and resurrection of Christ, man is still responsible for living out his life on earth in a way that is God-pleasing (man does this not to earn salvation, but in response to that which has been done on his behalf). The deepest kind of satisfaction can be attained in both this life and the life to come, but only if one has a right relationship with God. Recognizing and respecting the moral constraints God established is part of that.[iii] If a man is motivated to achieve his goal of happiness and satisfaction, then logically, he should seek to remain in a right relationship with the One who can provide that desired end result, both now and in eternity.

A person whose only goal is his own self-interest in this earthly life could easily believe that rules, ethics, and rights can all be violated for his own sake. Any system, then, that sets a goal solely applicable in this life necessarily excludes acknowledging rights. If man’s goal is “goodness” or “happiness” only in this life, then he need only acknowledge the rights of others when it is in his own best interest, and never otherwise. In that case, rights are no longer universally applicable rules to follow and are therefore no longer rights. If life ends at death, then it makes perfect sense that one should do whatever he can to make himself happy during his lifetime, even if that means causing harm to others. However, Scripture reveals that there is more to life than the years spent on Earth. Life extends into eternity and man does not have to sacrifice his acknowledgement of rights in his earthly life in order to reach his goal of happiness and fulfillment in eternal life. A person whose goal is his own self-interest in this earthly life AND in eternal life will recognize that the means to this end goal involve the recognition and defense of rules, ethics, and rights – not as way of earning eternal life, but as a way of enjoying completeness with the Creator, Savior God.

Scripture, then, acts as revelation to Christians. It reveals man’s universal rights and identifies God as their source. It provides awareness of the possibility of eternal life and of the beauty of a relationship with God. With that knowledge comes a motivation for respecting the rights of others. The origin of and motivation for respecting the rights of mankind combine to form a solid basis for the universal defense of the rights Libertarians hold so dear.

So ultimately, rights are not something that should be defended simply by observing their utility within a society. Nor are rights something that can be defended solely by saying they come from nature, for nature would more often have men violate each other’s rights in an effort to survive. Rights are instead established by God Himself and preserved for posterity in the Bible. Scripture provides the origin of rights and the defense of their universality. Rights do not have to be ignored in certain cases in order to reach the end goal of happiness or fulfillment because life does not end with death, and happiness and fulfillment are found in a right relationship with God. And a right relationship with God is attained through Spirit-inspired faith and obedience to God’s Word. Libertarians who desire to know and discuss the source of their inalienable rights should therefore look not to worldly philosophical arguments, but to the Bible and its author, our author, God the Creator.

[i] Another problem inherent in Rothbard’s view is that it doesn’t give self-ownership to those who by nature can’t “choose ends and means in order to survive and flourish.” Therefore, in his view, a person in a coma has no rights, nor does a fetus, nor an infant. Only the Christian view is consistent, giving all humans rights at all times and in all conditions.

[ii] Not all of the laws in the Bible establish rights, only those that deal with interpersonal action. The law to remember the Sabbath and the law against worshipping idols are personal, not interpersonal. Although breaking these laws may indirectly affect other people, the laws themselves are not direct moral constraints on interpersonal interaction. Therefore, it must be noted that Biblical Law goes beyond interpersonal actions and addresses personal concerns as well. In this sense, libertarian rights are established from only a subset of the laws of God.

[iii] To preemptively address a potential issue, it may be important to note that rights only exist as they apply to relationships among men, as morality only applies to men. Rights don’t constrain God, nor do they constrain nature. To say that man has a right to life means that all other people ought not to kill man; it does not mean that God ought not to kill man nor that an animal or a volcano ought not to kill man.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Proper Origin of Rights

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Ayn Rand, Bible, christian libertarian, ethics, libertarianism, Objectivism, philosophy, rights, theology, theonomy, utilitarianism

Related Content:

• The Humongous Page of Libertarian Resources (12)
• On Rand and Altruism: A Defense of Christian Self-Interest (18)
• About LCC (2)
• Theological Traditions (3)
• The Libertarian Theology of Freedom (28)

Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) was a French sociologist, philosopher, and theologian, but his main profession was teaching law at the University of Bordeaux. He held strong views about the nature of government as antithetical to Christian faith, and is counted among the 20th century Christian anarchists.

Anarchy and Christianity is a short work presenting the essentials of Ellul’s political philosophy with respect to Scripture. It reads in a scholarly manner, especially with his references to historical and textual criticism and the assumption that the reader knows something about Marxian class theory, historical theological traditions, and even a bit of Greek. One must be prepared to encounter someone distant from the American evangelical theology that we are so familiar with. I’d be hard-pressed to say he is a “theological liberal,” but he is different. Despite the qualms I have with certain elements of Ellul’s thought, I found the book to be a very enjoyable read and it enlivened Scriptures that I had not paid due attention in the past. Since it isn’t that long, I think anyone can gain a lot from reading this book.

The book contains three main parts, plus an appendix for further thoughts. First, Ellul includes a personal introduction to demonstrate why the political question of anarchy is still important to the church today. He begins: “The question I am posing is the more difficult because fixed opinions have long since been reached on both sides and have never been subjected to the least examination.” If anything, the question is not settled (not even with him). He reveals some of his personal history, including his time participating in Marxist movements before converting to Christianity. Even though he admired Marx, he was also very familiar with Proudhon (“Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order.”) and therefore never really considered himself a strict Marxist/communist even while sympathetic to the ideas.

Part 1 is entitled “Anarchy from a Christian Standpoint” and outlines what anarchy actually is, describes why he considers himself and anarchist, and answers some anarchist objections to Christianity. To Ellul, the essential element of anarchy is not the caricature of a bomb-throwing revolter but a rejection of violence and aggression as a means of accomplishing political goals. “No matter what the motivation, however, I am against violence and aggression. I am against it on two levels. The first is simply tactical… My second reason is obviously a Christian one. Biblically, love is the way, not violence.” Ellul then addresses the charge of non-Christian anarchists that Christianity itself is antithetical to freedom, even going so far as to address briefly the “problem of evil.”

I love this paragraph where he defends the position that God is the great liberator:

But why freedom? If we accept that God is love, and that it is human beings who are to respond to this love, the explanation is simple. Love cannot be forced, ordered, or made obligatory. It is necessarily free. If God liberates, it is because he expects and hopes that we will come to know him and love him. He cannot lead us to do so by terrorizing us.

The subject of Part 2 is “The Bible as the Source of Anarchy,” where Ellul shows via what he calls a “naïve reading” of the Bible that typical interpretations of pro-state Christians are wrongheaded. He surveys both the Old and New Testaments, answering a variety of questions that seemingly pro-state Scriptures bring to the forefront. Without giving too much away, he addresses 1 Samuel, the Prophets, the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Peter, and Revelation. Some of his interpretations are what I expected, others are quite surprising. I will leave it to you to discover and enjoy.

In summary, Ellul’s work is quality material for the Christian libertarian. His chief flaw – and this flaw is certainly not trivial from my point of view – is a lack of understanding about the free market as the great vehicle of practicing freedom. I think it very likely that he is caricaturing corporatism as capitalism, but nevertheless a steadier free market principle would be help bolster his ideas to contemporary libertarians of all backgrounds. But most importantly, he gives an thought-provoking case that the State is from any point of view the enemy of freedom and of God.

Please consider buying Anarchy and Christianity at Amazon.com and LCC will then get a small kick-back from the sale. Remember, LCC receives a small percentage of any shopping you do at Amazon when you go through an LCC link. Help keep LCC growing and growing; your support is much appreciated!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Anarchy and Christianity

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: anarchy, ethics, free market, free society, gospel, government, history, Marx, philosophy, The State, theology

Related Content:

• Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition (4)
• New FAQ Questions Added (2)
• Turning the Other Cheek — Matthew 5:38-42 (6)
• Theological Traditions (3)
• The Proper Origin of Rights (24)

“The talk is not hurried. Time, bordering on eternity, has lost all meaning.” Take your time reading it. Come back to it later if you have to. But, read every word. It just might change your life.

The Dialogue

Well young man, you may think this is it. Perhaps you are wondering what comes next.

Who are you?

I am you, a part of yourself with which you hardly got acquainted. I am your Integrity, your Intelligence, your Humility, your Reason, your Conscience. In short, I am such Harmony as you have with Ultimate Wisdom – shall I say, with God? You have kept me in the background, hidden away from your earthly life. You have had only dim notions of my existence.

Why do you appear to me now in this last moment of life?

Appear now? You talk as though it were I who do the coming and going. I have been here all the time. You simply haven’t seen fit to embrace me, to make me a real part of your earthly self. Frankly, this is the first time since childhood that you have been receptive. Your time has been occupied with other companions: approval and applause among men, fortune, fame, power, to mention but a few. They have now deserted you as they do everyone, at the end. You are alone with me. I am all you have left. Thus it is that you feel I have come to you. On the contrary, this circumstance of your earthly departure has merely made way for me.

Strange that I should wait until now to know you. What an about-face in my sense of values! Fame? Always I was wooing her. Now I see her shallowness. Concern about Immortal Judgment takes her place, a concern I have not known before. How, dear Conscience, will I be judged?

Have you not written your own credentials? Perfect justice will assuredly be accorded you. Everlasting Life will doubtless be an accurate mirroring of you as you have been. While in many respects you were an excellent person, the record shows that you killed men – both Korean and Chinese, and were also responsible for the death of many women and children during this military campaign.

That is correct, and I regret that it was necessary. But we were at war, a good and a just war. We had to stop Communist aggression and the enslavement of people by dictators. That war was in accord with United States foreign policy.

Did you kill these people as an act of self defense? Were they threatening your life or your family? Were they on your shores, about to enslave you?

No, they were not. But you don’t understand our foreign policy. It was very clever. It sought to thwart aggression by going to war against others before they could use aggression against us in our own homeland. It had the advantage of using someone else’s country as the battleground. True, this foreign policy sometimes confused me. But I always imagined I got my thinking straight by envisioning Mr. and Mrs. Jones, next door, getting into a battle royal. The winner might feel strong enough to attack me. So, why not take the side of the weaker party in order to forestall such a possibility? That would put an end to neighborhood trouble, wouldn’t it? In short, our foreign policy was represented as an act of self -defense. We merely anticipated the acts of our enemies by taking certain positive and necessary actions. We planned to lick them before they had a chance to become aggressive against us. Our motto was: "Never give up the initiative." I hope it will turn out all right. I was dealt this blow before the issue was settled. Conscience, what do you think?

In the first place, please understand that I don’t care to discuss what you call your foreign policy. It is too late for that. The judgment which now concerns you must be rendered on you as an individual – not on parties or mobs or armies or policies or processes or governments. While governments limited to keeping the peace and invoking a common justice are necessary for mortal beings, before Him it is only the quality of individuals that counts. What collective can have any validity for you from now on? In the Temple of Judgment which you are about to enter, Principles only are likely to be observed. It is almost certain that you will find there no distinction between nationalities or between races. A woman is a woman. A child is a child, with as much a right to an opportunity for Self-realization as you. To take a human life – at whatever age, or of any color – is to take a human life. You imply that you feel no personal responsibility for having killed these people. Why, then, did you personally accept the "honors"? According to your notions, no one person is responsible for the deaths of these people. Yet, they were destroyed. Seemingly, you expect collective arrangements such as "the army" or "the government" to bear your guilt. Yet you expect in Everlasting Life the bestowal of personal honors for virtues. Are you not struck with the absurdity of it all? Will you not stand before Judgment unadorned – just as a spirit, a recorded memory and conscience? Is this not all that will be dealt with there? Can there be any other trappings to consider beyond this spirit you are – once a person who lived and had the opportunity to choose between good and evil?

But, my Conscience, I had no choice. I had to do what others called my duty. Otherwise, my friends and fellow-citizens would have dubbed me a traitor. I would have been put in jail, disgraced before man, borne the name of a coward.

You are doubtless right about what would have happened to you, and at the very hands of those whose guilt is as great as yours. In my view there can be no distinction between those who do the shooting and those who aid the act. Moreover, the guilt would appear to be even greater on the part of those who resorted to the coercive power of government to get you to sacrifice your home, your fortune, your chance of Self-realization, your life – none of which sacrifices they themselves appear willing to make. They will face Judgment, too, in but another moment. And they will be judged as you will be judged. On the surface it would seem that more courage would have been required of you to attend strictly to Principle than to do what you did – than to take a part in tearing asunder what God has created. Deeper reflection, however, will reveal that you and others took on the characteristic of a herd, and by so doing surrendered your standing as individuals. By this drifting from personal action to mass action – a move that only alert intelligence could have avoided – a dilemma was created for you and for all members of the collective: the choice of shooting others or having others shoot you for forsaking them; to do as the others demanded, or risk the collective’s penalty for nonconformance.

You certainly put my evil in good company. According to you, nearly every man, acknowledged as great in our history, bears a guilt not unlike my own, as does about every American citizen of today. Isn’t that carrying condemnation a little too far?

In attempting to answer this question, it should be clearly understood that no single person is ever in possession of more than an infinitesimal fraction of Truth. This condition would seem to condemn man to some error even when he exercises his best judgment. The capacity for self improvement affirms this point. To argue otherwise would be to classify man as perfect – that is, as equal to God. To assert that any mortal could be wholly free from sin would be to make the same untenable argument.

Man, in spite of his individuality, lives with others. And having chosen to live with others, he cannot escape an accountability for his part of any collective action of society in which he participates. As part of the warp and woof of society, he is committed to some responsibility for its collective misdeeds, either by commission or omission. Thus, all men err. There are no exceptions.

To take one’s own life to escape the sin implicit in living, or to surrender life as the alternative to sinning, is to indulge in a greater sin. The first duty of man is to defend life. Otherwise, there is no opportunity to develop God-given potential. Living man can only aim at sinlessness; he can never achieve it. Having any part in coercive, collectivist action is one way of insuring sin. The best one can do, then, finding some such action inescapable, except through death, is to mitigate his sin. While bearing his share of society’s sins he can at least refuse to be a sponsor of them; indeed, he can use suasion to spread the truth as he sees it. You should not, therefore, be too dismayed that you and those you hold in high esteem have erred. It is the lot of mankind. Among the cardinal sins, however, is the failure to make earnest attempts at minimizing error.

Thanks for the relief which these thoughts provide. But, one matter bothers me very much. Why did our leaders, including many supposed moral leaders, tell us that we could not fail in this war because God was on our side?

It may well be that your leaders believed what they told you. But many of the leaders in what you call your enemy countries also claimed God’s blessings, and said the same things. I doubt, however, that you will be judged according to these claims of any earthly leader. Nor will a leader be judged for the acts of his willing followers. The greatest of earthly leaders will doubtless stand alone before God, on their own records, as you will stand.

Very well! I am beginning to see what you mean. But I shall argue for absolution on the grounds that I did not know that I was doing a wrong. These points you have made never occurred to me before.

Do not overlook the fact that you were born onto earth with God-given mental faculties, with the power to reason. You had me with you all the time, yet often ignored me. You should have realized from the simplest earthly observations that there is no evidence of any absolution of cause and consequence on the grounds of not knowing. For example, assume that you were unaware of the law of gravitation, and jumped from atop a high building. Would the fact of your ignorance have made the fall any less severe? Let’s say you had no suspicion of murder as an evil and, as a consequence, you killed people. Would they be any less dead by reason of your failure to know? Isn’t the untimely demise which you now face enough answer to these questions? In spite of your lack of understanding of the reasons for it, you are dying. If Conscience has any function, it must be as a guide to the avoidance of evil acts and their inevitable consequences. To put one’s self into communion with Truth is the first of all virtues. To do this one must live. Could you conceive of there being no penalty for ignorance, or reward for wisdom?

No, I could not, my Conscience. But, another question. Why do you say it is wrong to kill, and then imply that it is proper to kill, if necessary, to defend one’s life?

The answer becomes clear if we think in terms of who initiates violence. It is evil for any person or set of persons to initiate violence against another. But, if another initiates violence against you, and if he dies in the process of your protecting your life, does he not, in reality, suffer death at his own hand, as in suicide? He initiates the action in the course of which he is killed. He, not you, is the author of the equation that destroys him.

I can plainly see that this is morally sound as relating to persons. But isn’t there a different standard for a nation?

No! There is no new right brought into being by reason of you and another, or you and 150 million others, acting collectively. Whatever is immoral for you as a person is immoral for a number of persons. Virtue is a quality solely of the individual. Multiplication of individuals does not change virtue’s definition. As it is proper for you to protect your life against violence initiated by another, so it is proper for a number of you to protect yourselves against violence initiated against your number. But that is all. There is no extension of moral rights by reason of how numerous you are. Were moral rights to exist in relation to number, a mob’s actions would have a basis for approval. Russians would have rights not possessed by Americans. And might would, indeed, make right.

But what about the protection of others, beyond our number, who have had violence initiated against them? Suppose I had observed a bully beating a child, or a ruffian attacking my neighbor’s wife? Should I have stood idly by as a mere witness to such outrage?

Not necessarily. It is presumed that in the case of a bully beating a child, or a ruffian attacking your neighbor’s wife, that you have been as competent to judge initiated violence as if the violence were initiated against your own person. You asked the question because you think you see in it a situation analogous to the United States protecting South Korea. The situation is not analogous. You would not, of your own free will, give up your home, your business, even your life, to protect the South Koreans as against the North Korean. And for good reason. In many instances, you recognize your incompetence to assign causation even to your own acts. It is, therefore, next to impossible for you to determine the just from the unjust in cases that are remote to your experience, between peoples whose habits and thoughts and ways of life are foreign to you. Thinking only of yourself you recognize your own scope and proper limits of your own actions. But interference in strange areas may make you the initiator of violence rather than the protector of rectitude. If, however, of your own free choice, you wish to protect the South Koreans, you have only your own judgment to account for. But there is a far greater accounting to make if coercion is used to cause others to do what you elect to do. Why, though, should you elect to do any such thing? You are as unaware of the forces at work in this Asiatic affair as you are of the causes of a quarrel between two headhunters. Am I wrong? If so, why have you been shooting Koreans and Chinese when the Russians are supposed to be the ones you fear? Are you expecting the North Koreans or the Chinese to invade the American shores?

Very well, my Conscience, but matters of national concern such as this cannot be left to the voluntary action of a free people. Few, if any, would be here in Korea. I doubt if many would voluntarily give up home, fortune, and life to protect the Philippines, or France, or even England. National interest demands that there be an authority to coerce us into proper action against communism.

Force! Coercion! Violence! Forever, it seems, people proposing force as a means to eliminate force! You do not seem to realize that the essential characteristic of communism is coercion. Communism in essence is the communalization of the product of all by force. Americans now practice communism in so many ways that the doctrine – not in name, but in substance – is rapidly becoming not only acceptable but "respectable." There are people, many of them, who sincerely believe in this idea. Those who believe in it, and openly proclaim their belief in it, you call "Communists." But you who practice it, and deny your belief in it, call yourselves "Liberals" and your countries "Democracies." And you propose to rid the world of force by using force against those who admit they believe in force. In reality, you endorse their position. You make the belief in force unanimous. What, pray tell, can you do with guns to make them question the rightness of their beliefs? Can you do more than to confirm their belief in guns and to incite the wider use of guns?

The belief in coercion is an idea just as much as the belief in freedom is an idea. It is for this reason that I think you have mistaken the nature of the conflict. It is ideological, not personal; it is of the intellect, not of the flesh. A ferment now goes on in the minds of men, ideas demanding violence as the means to a communal way of life. As in every ferment a scum rises to the top, as fungus on a muck heap. These bad ideas which rise out of the ferment are not to be destroyed by killing the persons who voice them. The swirls in the ferment will throw up replacements endlessly. Killing merely agitates the process, as a poke on the jaw usually evokes a retaliatory poke on the jaw. It’s the ideas which have to be considered. The route to better ideas is evolutionary and peaceful, a matter you should have pondered long ago. Better ideas are not shot into persons with guns. Can you not see that gunners, except when acting in self-defense, have contracted the very disease they are bent on destroying?

What you are saying is that the people of the United States do not know their own interests; that coercion, the essence of the dictator idea, produces better results than man in free action. You are saying that your countrymen are ignorant if free, but that one or more of their number, politically selected, will force them to act wisely if given enough power. You are saying that wisdom is generated by the mere act of giving some person or persons a monopoly of coercion. If this be true, why do you not accept the Russian arrangement and be done with it? Does it really matter whether an American or a Russian has a gun in your back? I thought you were fighting for freedom. Isn’t it possible that the way to advance freedom is to behave like free men rather than like regimented men? You, I fear, have been spreading the very disease you claim to be trying to destroy.

It is rather dreadful to think that I have met death in an action that spreads communism. The demand for unity, however, has always seemed sound to me. An early American slogan was: "In unity there is strength." How else could unity be achieved except by some program insuring involuntary service?

There are two kinds of unity. One kind makes for weakness. The other makes for strength.

For instance, there is that type of unity exemplified by the goose step. It makes for a sameness in action, to be sure. However, it is nothing but a mass obedience to a master will. It demands a disregard of personality and individual variation. Its theme is a tortuous cadence, mankind responding to the tick-tock of some fallible, human metronome. In this kind of unity there is but the appearance of strength. In substance it is a corruption and a weakness implicit in men, who, though gifted by God with reason, permit themselves to be led like oxen or driven like sheep. This is the kind of unity involuntary service provides.

There is strength only in that unity which results from like-mindedness. This originates with an individual’s actions being in unity with his conscience. In short, the type of unity that has lasting strength is born of integrity. Its extension depends on the consciences of men being similar. The result is similarity in action – action dictated by conscience instead of by Caesars. This is the kind of unity voluntary service produces. Involuntary unity, however, will do even more harm than that of merely making its practitioners weak. Its false show of strength tends to create fears in other nations, developing a like-mindedness in them as to what they should do to resist and assuage their fears. Coercion thus generates a voluntary unity and a real strength among the very people at whom the involuntary unity is aimed.

In one of the little-publicized chapters of World War II, for example, one million Russian officers and men voluntarily joined the invading Germans, considering them as their liberators. The German dictator, hearing of this, ordered that these officers and men be imprisoned or killed. This action, dictated by Hitler, caused a like-mindedness among the Russian people. There subsequent action at Stalingrad against the Germans became very much of a voluntary action. History records how like-mindedness created a strength where only weakness had existed.

The Korean affair is in no way dissimilar. Hardly an American favored this war if tested by his willingness voluntarily to sacrifice family, fortune or life. This war could not have happened short of involuntary service. And as was to be expected under these circumstances, the result has been less security for America. Our excursion into Korea is creating a like-mindedness, the will to voluntary service against us on the part of the Asiatic people. These steps which are weakening an America that was strong are strengthening an Asia that was weak.

But, then, is it not also true that involuntary servitude and a show of military force by the Russian people tends to cause a like-mindedness, a will to voluntary service, on the part of the Americans?

This would be the tendency, if let alone. But the involuntary service that has been initiated in America destroys the tendency toward voluntary unity in this field, just as, in the field of welfare, involuntary police grants-in-aid destroy the will to voluntary charity. Directed action is substituted for self-inspired action. Weakness takes the place of strength.

Involuntary service on the part of the Russians, if extended to the point of interfering with American life and property, would inspire American voluntary service.

But Conscience, wouldn’t this voluntary action on the part of the American people come too late to save us from invasion?

This prevalent idea overlooks the weakness from within that comes to the aggressor by reason of his continued involuntary service. It glosses over the fact that as the enemy extends himself and his supply lines he is faced with ever-dwindling resources at home. His extended position requires the opposite: progressively greater resources at home. Overlooked, also, is the strength that would remain with Americans by reason of the conservation of their resources and by reason of an undeniable determination bred by the like-mindedness of a people defending their homeland. They are as a tigress protecting her offspring.

To fight evil with evil is only to make evil general. To contend against involuntary action by involuntary action is only to make involuntary action general. Let a slave master organize millions of slaves into industrial and military divisions, and many people will think they observe a great strength. Let millions be free of any slave master, let their energies be released, let them work alone, or competitively or cooperatively as the mutuality of their interests suggests, and many people think they observe a great chaos. These observations are but great delusions. People confuse appearance and substance one with the other. There is enduring strength only in free men. When the truth of this is learned to the point of its becoming a profound faith, then – and then only – will mass murders be removed from the agenda of men. Man will seldom kill if acting on his individual responsibility and under guidance of his own disciplines. But he can be made to kill if and when he becomes an involuntary agent. In this condition he is no longer singular and self, but part of a mass, responding to stimuli beyond his own wisdom and conscience.

I begin to understand. The chaos I thought I saw in men acting freely was but the inadequacy of my own grasp of things; it was but the reflection of my own limited comprehension. Order, strength, to me, meant only an arrangement of men’s behavior that fell within the range of my own narrow knowledge. Men forced to goose step, to act in simple patterns, gave the appearance of unity which I mistook for strength.

This chaos I thought I saw – others doing things I couldn’t do or understand – was but men in free and voluntary effort, each finding his greatest realization and productiveness in action of his own choosing. I had planned, after this war, to enter my chosen field, a highly specialized one, adapted to aptitudes peculiar to me. I now see how my own interest would have been better served by similarly having others specializing in the fields peculiar to their aptitudes in order that there might be an exchange among us with benefit and profit to all.

All sorts of things occur to me now. Human energy is expressed through the faculties of men. The non-use of any faculty, be it a muscle in the arm or the power to reason, brings on atrophy. Human energy is like electrical energy; it has strength only as it is flowing, as it is in use. These faculties of men through which their energy finds expression are not only different in all men but they are self-controlled. No man can control the creative faculties of another. No man can force another to think, or to invent, or to imagine. The only control one man can exercise over the faculties of another is a destructive or restraining control. One man can destroy all the faculties of another by shooting him. One man can restrain the use of the faculties of another by inducing fear of prison or ostracism.

Involuntary service, therefore, is the restraint of men’s faculties by another, the denial of self-control of faculties, the forced employment of someone else’s idea of one’s faculties, an idea that has no possible way to be right. This explains why, in the army, I have noted good entertainers made into poor cooks, and skilled machinists employed as bad buglers. Involuntary service presupposes that there is one person or group of persons who know how to fit the peculiar faculties of all men into some master plan of action. In reality, though, such persons are fortunate if they even know what to do with themselves, let alone others.

I now see the strength in voluntary effort. I now see that no one – least of all I – can grasp or understand more than a fraction of the total effort of all persons. But I can see my own superiority as a free man as against a slave. And I need only to project this idea to all other persons to arrive at my own answer, the one you have been trying to impress upon me: Free men are strong men!

I wish, however, that you would elaborate even more on why most individuals will not kill on their own responsibility, but will take a part in mass killings. If these acts of ours which turn out to be evil, were done in ignorance, why so wide the lack of understanding? All people seem to be similarly at fault to some degree.

I only wish you had called on me, your Better-self, ere this. Or that you had called on others. Excellent answers to these questions have been made time and time again throughout history. You merely took no heed of them, nor of me. You repeatedly said you had no time to contemplate, to think, to read, to study – in short, to invoke my help. Unwittingly, you made mockery of anything really serious that had a bearing on your Immortal Soul. You opened your ears and mind to the frivolous, to "easier" ways, to the fallacy that you could turn your responsibilities and problems over to government, to answers that declared you could take a part in evil and not be responsible for it. By your failure to reason you became a party to an absurdity: the notion that you could gain peace by the use of war; love by the use of violence.

The key to your mortal confusion, I believe, has been a failure to perceive, until now, the nature of the collective. You have admitted – and I believe you – that you as an individual would not kill another person. But oftentimes men personally as virtuous as yourself have joined a mob, lynched and killed someone, and attached no personal guilt to themselves at all. The collective – the mob – was responsible for the deed, so they thought. But the mob, an informal collective, is not subject to eternal damnation or Immortal Glory. It is but a name given to an arrangement which consists only of individuals. Can other than persons be responsible for acts, be the acts done alone or in association?

But I was not acting as a member of a mob. I acted in response to my government.

Government, also, is a collective. It differs from the mob in that it is organized, legalized, formal force, presumably founded on deliberation rather than on impulse. But government is no more subject to eternal damnation or Immortal Glory than is an illegal mob. It, also, is but a name given to an arrangement which consists only of individuals. They – and they alone – are responsible for what they do collectively as government. They – and they alone – are subject to Judgment.

Most persons believe some form of government to be necessary as a means of achieving maximum liberty. But unless they succeed in properly limiting government, they will surrender some – or even all – of their personal rights and responsibilities to it. Unless they understand the nature of coercion – its power only to suppress, restrain, destroy – they will yield to it and lose their ability to act creatively. Government has the necessary and logical function of protecting the property and life of all citizens equally. But if people fail to understand the nature of coercion they will attempt to use this force of government even for creative purposes; they will vainly attempt to use a negating physical force – government – as a means of accomplishing a positive good. Unless they comprehend coercion, many of them will rob in the name of charity, plunder in the name of prosperity, and kill in the name of God.

I confess, I have been killing in the name of God, at least as I know God.

There appears to be another failure, too; the failure to grasp the idea that whoever gives another the authority to act on his behalf, must accept personal responsibility for the results of the delegated authority. For example, self-discipline is exclusively the product of the individual. It is the quality – indeed, the virtue – in you which accounts for the fact that you would not kill another person in your own name. But let authority for your actions be transferred to government, a collective, without an exact accompaniment of your personal responsibility for that authority – without an equivalent transfer of that excellent discipline which controls your own actions – and, ipso facto, you will act without personal discipline as a result of the mistaken belief that there can be authority without responsibility. In short, will you not generate irresponsible action? And this, I submit, is the illogical process – call it foreign policy or whatever – which leads you to kill another person without remorse or a feeling of guilt. You label the action by another name, "the government," "the army"; so you thoughtlessly conclude that the responsibility is attached to another name also. Does not the fault inhere in your not recognizing that the consequences of your actions are irrevocably yours, whether you personally conduct them or whether you employ government, a collective agency, to administer them?

Unless there be a strict awareness of the limitations that should guide delegated authority, and an equally keen realization that even a limited, delegated authority demands total personal responsibility, there will of necessity result a vast amount of evil action.

Were there none of my forebears who understood the nature of the collective?

Yes, many of them. One of your countrymen perceived these dangers and gave a warning that was little heeded: "That government is best which governs least." It is only when the agenda of government are minor and incidental to the aggregate action of a people that the agenda can even be understood, let alone accepted personally as one’s own. If the agenda become numerous, or if they extend beyond the narrow confines of defending all citizens against violence and predacity initiated against them by others, the minds of most men will not be able to grasp what will be suffered in their names. However, as I said before, you should have sought my services sooner. While I, too, am finite and subject to error, I am as close to God as you can get on this earth. It was your task to join with me in order that together we might search for Truth—-the vital element in your earthly purpose of Self-realization.

Thank you, my Conscience. But what is there for me now?

Your life is now about to end. Will you not from here on be judged for what you were? You will no longer be in the realm of the to be. What you have been will condition what you will be, or so it seems to me.

What has happened to your life is not at all uncommon. You simply elected to act in a way pleasing to some of your earthly contemporaries. You gave little weight or thought to Immortal Judgment. You chose to have your honors before your fellowmen rather than before God. You gave preference to man’s medals and plaudits over and above the reward you now seek. You were given your opportunity, and you made a choice. As a consequence, will not your spirit and influence go down through the ages as you elected they should? Were you not the judge, and have you not passed judgment on yourself by your life and the way you lived it? It seems to me that you have made the pattern for your life in the Everlasting World, a part of which you have made in this last moment of consciousness as a mortal being. Let us, since you and I are now one and inseparable, be eternally grateful that so much of it appears to have been good.

Epilogue

Hmm! The collective! Government and its over-extension! The process of de-personalization! The method that divorces action from conscience! Action and conscience together lead to justice – apart, action becomes indiscriminate! Action and conscience together, and I would not kill – but divorce them, and I become a party to mass killing. Why did I not think of these ideas and their meaning? Why did I not recognize that (1) our ambassadors to other countries are politicians and (2) that the only ambassadors of good will and peace are free traders, as free to trade with other nations as between our fifty states? Why did I not think…

Copyright 1951, 1981 by the Foundation for Economic Education.

Leonard E. Read (1898–1983) was the founder of FEE.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Conscience on the Battlefield

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: ethics, history, philosophy, war, war on terror

Related Content:

• The Deadly Cost of Interventionism (3)
• Ron Paul: Get out of Afghanistan NOW! (0)
• Podcast: War, Foreign Policy, and the Church (Part 1) (0)
• Podcast: Christianity and War Part 1 (4)
• Mission Accomplished, Obama-Style (0)

The Abrahamic Legacy: The Jewish Ideal of Freedom

At first glance it may sound a bit peculiar to assert the strong ties between Judaism and libertarianism. After all, it is hard in the modern world to distinguish and disassociate Judaism from modern day Zionism, though the two to a large extent could not be more ideationally apart. To set the record straight Judaism is not modern day Zionism. While modern day Zionism wishes to advance certain political and social goals via the deification of the state, Judaism simply wishes to observe the world and understand its nature and mechanics. Judaism is a science and philosophy more than it is a religion or movement. It is from here, from the honest understanding of the world which Jewish philosophy seeks, that Judaism meets and grabs tightly to ideals paralleling libertarianism.

So how does Judaism as a philosophy respond to government intervention and the ideal of freedom? Well perhaps we should begin a bit historically. Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik in his work " The Emergence of Ethical Man," describes Abraham as anarchic. The divine imperative to Abraham of "leave from your land" (Genesis 12:1), according to Rabbi Soloveitchik, was meant as a removal from a conforming society, society that adores institution for the sake of adoring institutions. The real ethical and charismatic man according to Judaism is the freethinking, unimpressed, non-coerced individual. Abraham left structured society to become a nomad and what he left in secure asylum he gained in free and meaningful inquiry. It could not be stated any better than how Rabbi Soloveitchik himself says it, "The charismatic personality is a political and social anarchist…he is not an ethical conformist who just subjects himself to an external authority, which over powers and enslaves him" (Emergence of Ethical Man pg. 156).

Read more at LewRockwell.com.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Abrahamic Legacy

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Judaism, libertarianism, philosophy, theology

Related Content:

• The Proper Origin of Rights (24)
• Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition (4)
• The Libertarian Theology of Freedom (28)
• The Humongous Page of Libertarian Resources (12)
• Summer Reading – Top 10 books that you should drop everything to read now… (1)

If a patron saint for the libertarian movement were to be chosen, at the top of the list would be Rev. Edmund A. Opitz, minister and theologian for liberty. He was a good friend of Murray Rothbard and many others in the freedom movement—he was present from the beginning and knew almost everyone. From the 1950s through the 1990s, Opitz called the church to an integrated understanding of religion, economics, and individual liberty. He passed away in 2006, creating a void yet to be filled but leaving this world much better than he had found it.Opitz trained for Christian ministry at Andover Seminary and initially ministered in the Unitarian Church. But during his early years of ministry Unitarianism became more and more influenced by liberal Protestantism and the social gospel, whereas Opitz consistently grew more theologically conservative. He eventually left the Unitarian Church for the Congregationalist denomination and continued to promote conservative values and a thoroughly free market outlook upon social life.

Religion, Opitz would say, is far more than an academic exercise in one subject among many others; rather it is the fundamental way one approaches, understands, and evaluates all subjects. One’s religion, or worldview, makes all the difference in how one interacts with the world. Opitz’s Christian faith led him to the realization that liberty was the only reasonable organizing principle for society. Liberty and faith are not merely compatible – they are inseparable. “Liberty rests upon the belief that all proper authority for man’s relationships with his fellow men comes from a source higher than man — from the Creator… Each person has a relation to his Maker with which no other person, not even the ruler, has any right to interfere.” Reciprocally, Opitz believed a philosophy of liberty presupposed a background of Christian philosophy. Whether or not one accepts this notion, certainly Western civilization is indebted to Christendom for the understanding that natural law provides an absolute rather than relative standard—that there is something higher than the whims of men.

Opitz understood this philosophy of liberty as the true meaning of individualism. He repeatedly emphasized the importance of individual liberty in religious conviction: “Men must be free in society because each person has a destiny beyond society which he can work out only under the conditions of liberty.” The concept of individualism is often lost in the modern church. One frequently hears in religious circles that “individualism has no place in the life of the church,” but this constitutes a misunderstanding of the word itself. At its core, individualism means the individual is responsible for his own actions, in particular before God, and thus individual liberty is necessary for living out the dictates of conscience. Opitz would agree that one cannot be in Christ (Galatians 3:28) without the body of Christ—the church—but many Christians take this much too far and find themselves promoting collectivism rather than community. Individualism is not social atomism: “We have no inclination to be hermits; we are social creatures, and we achieve our full humanity only in association, in mutuality, and in community.” Voluntary action is the very essence of community, and thus the collectivist is actually acting against the spirit of community he seeks to promote.

The natural outgrowth of holding a consistent philosophy of political liberty is supporting a free market economy. Opitz understood that the free market was absolutely essential to maintaining a free society. “Economic freedom is to be cherished for itself, just as we cherish every one of our liberties. But economic freedom is doubly important because it sustains all the rest [of our liberties]… Economic freedom represents our livelihood, and whoever controls our livelihood has acquired critical leverage over every other aspect of our lives as well.” In this insight, Opitz recognized that Christianity, which mandates a free society where individuals can peacefully fulfill their responsibilities before God, and capitalism, which supports and maintains the free society, are not enemies in the least. Rather, they are critical allies, the best of friends. Opitz elaborates upon this topic at length in his appropriately titled book, Religion and Capitalism: Allies, Not Enemies.

But how can individual freedom be protected from tyranny? The solution, according to Opitz, lies in returning to classical-liberal political ideals. “There is a place for government in the affairs of men, and our Declaration of Independence tells us precisely what that place is. The role of government is to protect individuals in their God-given individual rights. Freedom is the natural birthright of man, but all that government can do in behalf of freedom is to let the individual alone, and it should secure him in his rights by making others let him alone.” Thus, if government is to have any purpose at all, it is only to secure the rights of individuals in their persons and property. Anything else is nothing short of criminal, for the standard of morality does not change when one dons a government uniform. Opitz saw the American governmental system as a unique solution in the history of man that had yet to be matched. To him, minimal government was the best way to restrain tyranny.

With these principles in mind, it is no surprise that Opitz was patently opposed to the so-called “social gospel” that was popular in the church for much of the 20th century. The central tenet of the social gospel was that the chief function of the church was to provide for the physical needs of the destitute by all possible means. Though charity is indeed a great part of the Christian way of life, social-gospel activists in effect renounced charity and condoned the use of force to achieve their meta-goals of social and economic equality through government programs and wealth transfer. Opitz’s keen outlook history and philosophy led him to write scathing critiques of the actions of social-gospel proponents, and in many respects he single-handedly turned much of the tide against this deviant theological point of view. (See his book The Libertarian Theology of Freedom for an excellent history of the social gospel.)

Opitz’s strong belief in freedom was coupled with action. Early in his career, he helped form and manage a group called Spiritual Mobilization, which disseminated newsletters promoting free-market ideas to over 20,000 ministers nationwide. Following the dissolution of Spiritual Mobilization, Opitz joined the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) as a senior staff member (and resident theologian). While at FEE, he founded the Nockian Society, which helped keep Albert Jay Nock’s writings in print, and “the Remnant,” a small fellowship of conservative and libertarian ministers named after the theme of Nock’s essay “Isaiah’s Job.” He spent 37 years at FEE, retiring in 1992.

He made a great impact upon the libertarian movement through his writing. The paper trail of his thoughts is voluminous. While a part of Spiritual Mobilization, Opitz was a frequent contributor to the magazine Faith and Freedom. He left an indelible mark upon FEE’s publication, The Freeman, with his numerous book reviews and articles. Religion and Capitalism is considered a classic text in both economics and theology. His manner of writing matched his manner of person—gentlemanly, persuasive, and humble—worthy traits that all libertarians should emulate.

Opitz could see the ramifications of the war of ideas that has been fought for centuries between liberty and tyranny. He saw the trajectories of the prominent ideas of his day—social gospel, collectivism, socialistic economic policy—and he used his abilities to promote what was good and right. “With how little wisdom do we organize our lives, especially in the areas of government and the economy. We’ve been going by dead reckoning for too long, and our dumb luck has just about run out,” he wrote in the August 1992 Freeman. Libertarian Christians should remember that Opitz helped pave the way for us to make a difference. Let us honor his legacy by telling Christians in America the answer to the problems society faces is not the State, but rather liberty and faith.

If you agree with the mission of YAL and other organizations teaching students about the virtues of liberty, please consider donating to the cause today!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Edmund Opitz – Minister to Liberty

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: christian libertarian, Christianity, Edmund Opitz, individualism, libertarian christian, philosophy, theology, YAL

Related Content:

• The Libertarian Theology of Freedom (28)
• New FAQ Questions Added (2)
• The Proper Origin of Rights (24)
• The Humongous Page of Libertarian Resources (12)
• Summer Reading – Top 10 books that you should drop everything to read now… (1)

The message “Don’t Tread” communicates in two words what the entire political philosophy of classical liberalism is about: desiring to be free from oppression from whatever quarter. In other words, “don’t mess with me.” This message is used by those advocating a less-invasive state, because governments — through taxation, legislation, regulation, surveillance, etc. — are the main aggressors upon individual rights. Why we believe the idea “Don’t Tread” is awesome:

• “Don’t Tread” is a concise yet powerful statement. In the U.S., the “Don’t Tread” viewpoint is often symbolized by the Gadsden Flag, which pictures the Western Rattlesnake about to strike — a fitting image because the Western Rattler keeps to itself and is not aggressive, but when it is provoked, will defend itself. Organizations such as the Free State Project and Drexel’s Student Liberty Front have used the porcupine as their symbol for like reasons. Elsewhere, the “Don’t Tread” mantra is captured by the phrase “laissez faire”. Because “Don’t Tread” is such a short statement and the associated images are provocative, they can easily be disseminated through multiple media; for instance as a desktop wallpaper, chalked on campus sidewalks, bumper sticker, clothing, or tattoos. “Don’t Tread” can introduce others to the ideas of freedom or start a conversation. Most importantly, “Don’t Tread” reminds passing bureaucrats that we won’t sit idly by as they try to control our lives.
• “Don’t Tread” necessitates no action from others. It does not communicate a positive right or imply a duty. Rather, it clearly states that you want to live your life in peace without interference from others, even if they believe you are making unwise decisions. It is particularly directed against bureaucrats and politicians who supposedly operate “for your own good,” yet do so at the point of a gun.
• “Don’t Tread” leads to the most prosperity. As people are free to act without interference from others, they are able to dispose of their property as they see fit. That means they can exchange it with others, save it, use it or destroy it. And only through a system that respects property rights can wealth be generated on such a massive scale that it lifts entire societies from poverty because the innovation needed to create better and cheaper products requires the incentive of owning what one has created and profiting from it. Consensual transactions between individuals entail that both parties gain from the exchange. When government gets in the way of these exchanges it violates each individual’s rights and curtails the engine of wealth creation, or what David Friedman called The Machinery of Freedom.
• “Don’t Tread” reminds those in government who really retains the power. Though a slick politician may mouth that they work for you, few believe it. Rather, they believe they are smarter than you, and they use the force of government to restrict your choices and control your life according to their views. Fortunately, more and more individuals are figuring out that just because some legislators pass legislation, that does not make it just. They recognize the difference between man-made laws, which are produced by governments, and natural rights, which individuals possess by virtue of being human beings regardless of whether government recognizes and protects those rights or not. And individuals, being sovereign with their own personal values and self-interests, are ready to defend themselves and others from aggression, whether the aggressor happens to be a common criminal or an agent of the State.

Previous | Next | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Don’t Tread

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Don't Tread, government, memes, philosophy

Related Content:

• Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition (4)
• Anarchy and Christianity (5)
• Why being a candidate can be beneficial for liberty (6)
• Who Owns You? (4)
• What do you hate most about taxes? (11)

Just the act of answering questions like this means that somebody, somewhere is probably going to hear the libertarian perspective, perhaps even for the first time. Here is the questionnaire and my answers. See what you think and comment about what you would have said. You can help me improve for next time!

Q1: Since the State financial support for education has decreased over the past two decades, what measures would you support to provide our public schools with adequate funding? (75 words)

A: Public school funding is not a sufficient metric for successful education efforts. Many private schools and homeschooling families operate on extremely low budgets yet educate children at a disproportionately high level relative to public schools. Rather than focus on increasing funding, I would support measures that give back control of educational resources to teachers and parents first. Eliminating systemic problems caused by political control of education should always take precedence over funding.

Q2: Texas is recognized as the highest carbon dioxide polluter among the 50 states. What would you propose to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Texas? (75 words)

A: Carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced using many methods that do not resort to increasing the government’s control over the economy. Clean vehicle purchases can be encouraged by repealing all taxes and tariffs upon high-efficiency vehicles. Tax deductions should exist for efficiency improvements, upgrades, and repairs on older vehicles, and those purchases should be tax-free. Alternative energy subsidies should be eliminated; the free market will determine how to allocate energy resources most efficiently.

Q3: How would you address the major transportation problems in Texas? (75 words)

A: The Trans-Texas Corridor scheme proposed by Rick Perry is a scam, and the government’s general effort to manage transportation in Texas is a failure. If an effective, inexpensive solution is sought, the government should reduce its role in managing the system. By allowing private roads to develop freely and competitively upon the market (not like the pseudo-public-private toll roads that TXDOT has built), transportation problems will invariably begin to solve themselves.

Q4: How should Texas solve the depletion of the unemployment fund? (75 words)

A: Ultimately, the unemployment fund can have no other effect than the perpetuation of unemployment since financial resources are used to allow idleness rather than productive activity. Instead of worrying about the depletion of the unemployment fund, the government should work in every way to reduce its own spending, thereby allowing the free market to adjust resources and capital toward creating new jobs without interference by the government.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Why being a candidate can be beneficial for liberty

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: activism, economics, elections, philosophy, pollution, public schools, transportation, unemployment

Related Content:

• Who Else Wants to Be a Good Steward? (1)
• The Humongous Page of Libertarian Resources (12)
• Progressives Against Progress (3)
• New Site: Libertarian Papers (7)
• My Journey Through Liberty (6)

End the Fed, by Ron Paul – The Federal Reserve banking system is corrupt and has devastated the world economy, and Ron Paul demonstrates in this great book just how bad it really is. A must-read for our current political situation!

Meltdown, by Thomas Woods – Here’s another essential book for you to know well. Tom has not only written a great expose of how the government has crippled the economy but also a great treatise in basic economics. This book even hit the NYT Bestseller list for multiple weeks!

The Libertarian Theology of Freedom, by Edmund Opitz – Most LCC readers are already familiar with Opitz since I have been in the process of archiving his essays online, but I want to point out that this book is back in stock again at Amazon (but probably not for long). Read my review of this book for more information. But for that matter, any book by Ed Opitz is well worth having on your bookshelf.

Christianity and War, by Laurence Vance – I’m going to keep pushing this book until every Christian I know is reading it. Laurence’s work is incredible and absolutely essential for getting the church at large to realize war is NOT the answer. (Don’t forget that you can get the audiobook exclusively from LCC!)

Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman – Does American “culture” sometimes make you wonder what on earth happened here? Neil Postman clarifies the problems we face on a regular basis in this classic book. Check out my book review here at LCC.

The Ethics of Money Production, by Guido Hulsmann – Guido is definitely one of my favorite scholars in the Austrian School, and this book is just one more reason why. His thesis is simple: money creation must occur on the free market, neither inhibited nor controlled by government, in order to be created in an ethical manner. Pretty great topic, eh? (By the way, you can get this book at Amazon, but it’s cheaper via the Mises Institute online store.)

The Cult of the Presidency, by Gene Healy – I met Gene for the first time this past October at the Students for Liberty Texas Conference, and am now an even greater admirer of his intellect and tenacity to hit the establishment hard. This book shows just how ridiculous statolatry has become, especially in the last eight years with Bush. Now, I think he could write a second book just about Obama. (Also, the paperback version runs a couple bucks cheaper if it matters to you.)

Faith and Liberty, by Alejandro Chafuen – I was really excited to find this book, which covers the history of the Late Scholastic thinkers and their writings on private property, trade, money, and the State – which were all written from theological perspective.

The Way, the Truth, and the Sword, by Scott Ritsema – You can get Scott’s great book either as an eBook or through Lulu.com. Either way, you’re in for a treat, as Scott has written a wonderful little book encouraging the church at large to reject the State and get back to the true savior, Jesus Christ. Scott is the webmaster at Civics News.

An Amazon Kindle filled with the Mises library and Christian Classics – This may be #10, but it’s probably #1 in my list. 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. Now THAT would be a gift long remembered! (Hey Mom, hint hint?)

And remember, if you follow one of these links, LCC gets a small referral cut from every purchase you make at no cost to you. So, get some great books AND support LibertarianChristians.com while doing your Christmas shopping. It’s much appreciated…

Finally, if you think a great book deserves to be on this list, comment below and make your voice heard!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: Book Reviews, culture, government, history, money, philosophy, recommended books, statolatry, theology

Related Content:

• Summer Reading – Top 10 books that you should drop everything to read now… (1)
• Leo Tolstoy Against the State (2)
• Anarchy and Christianity (5)
• Virtually unknown pub "Faith & Freedom" now available on Mises.org (2)
• The Libertarian Theology of Freedom (28)

Right click here to download the entire audio file. [~25 minutes, mp3]

For those with podcast software, there is a special Podcast RSS Feed set up just for you.

If you are using iTunes, click on the following button to subscribe directly:

UPDATE: I made a flub in the interview regarding the Greek wording of the “Golden Rule” — the negative form is NOT used in the Greek. My bad, got my facts upside down in my brain…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Podcast: Live and Let Live Radio Interview

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: interviews, philosophy, theology

Related Content:

• Top 10 Books for Christian Libertarians – 2009 Edition (4)
• The Proper Origin of Rights (24)
• The Libertarian Theology of Freedom (28)
• The Humongous Page of Libertarian Resources (12)
• The Abrahamic Legacy (0)

American political institutions presuppose certain convictions about human nature, the worth and prerogatives of persons, the meaning of life, the distinction between right and wrong, and the destiny of the individual. The Colonists came to their understanding of these matters as heirs of the intellectual and religious heritage of Christendom—the culture whose shaping forces sprang from ancient Israel, Greece, and Rome.

Given the consensus of two centuries ago—which regarded man as a sovereign person under God—it was only logical to structure government so as to expand opportunities for the exercise of personal freedom. The Constitution is clearly designed to maximize each individual’s equal right to pursue his own peaceful goals and enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of ownership.

The Declaration of Independence put into words what nearly everyone was thinking, that personal rights and immunities are ours because we are created beings, that is, we manifest a major purpose and intent of this universe. This implies a firm rejection of the alternative, which is to assume that we are the mere end products of natural and social forces, adrift in a meaningless cosmos. For if the universe is meaningless, then no way of life is any more meaningful than any other; in which case Power has no limits.

Our forebears had firm convictions about the purpose of life, and knew that in order to achieve life’s transcendent end Power must be limited: “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God,” they declared. If life is viewed in these terms, how shall we conceive the proper scope and competence of government? What is its role in society? What functions should we assign to it?

Government is the power structure of a society. This is the first and most important fact about the political agency, that it has the legal authority to coerce. The second thing is to inquire whether the power wielded by government is self-sprung, or delegated by a more comprehensive authority than the merely political. Does government rule autonomously or by divine right; or is the real power located elsewhere and merely loaned to government? The Constitution is clear on this point; the power is in the people to lay down the laws which Power must obey. They set it up; they tell it what to do.

“We, the People of the United States,” reads the Preamble, “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Specific Limitations

The people empower an agency to do certain things for them as a nation, but if we isolate the provisions they laid down to limit government the prevailing intent or consensus which made the Constitution its political tool becomes clearer.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Amendment X

The people, furthermore, possess a body of rights by native endowment above and beyond those mentioned in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment IX

These sovereign people shall be free to worship, speak, and publish freely.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press. Amendment I

Voluntary association is the corollary of individual liberty, and this is emphasized, as well as the right of petition.

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment I

The old world divisions of mankind into castes and orders of rank are to be no more.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. Article I, 9

Every citizen shall have a right to participate in the processes by which the nation is governed; and, should he desire to run for public office he shall not be put to a creedal test.

The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged. . . . Amendments’ XV and X1X

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Article VI

Freedom to Trade; No Special Privilege

Commerce makes for a free and prosperous people, so restraints on trade shall be removed.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State. . . . Article 1, 9

No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another. Article I, 9

Progressive taxation violates the principle of equal treatment under the law—penalizes ability, and lowers productivity, so it is forbidden.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census. . . . Article I, 9

The public treasury shall be inviolate; government shall not confer economic privilege on some at the expense of others.

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. Article I, 9

Personal privacy shall be respected and jealously guarded.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . . shall not be violated. Amendment IV

Conflict is a built-in feature of human action, and when collisions of interest do occur in society, the rights of the individual must be maintained.

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Amendment V

Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Amendment V

Strings on the Military

In some nations, the civilian life is a mere appendage to the military. This will not happen here because civilians control the purse strings.

No appropriation of money (to raise and support military and naval forces) shall be for a longer term than two years. Article 1, 8

As a further safeguard against any future militarization of this nation, the civilian sector must have the means for defending itself.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment II

In some countries, criminal proceedings are used to entrap citizens, whose guilt is assumed; the burden of proof is on them to show their innocence. Here, the innocence of the accused is assumed, until his guilt is proved. The law shall not reach backward to designate as criminal an action which until then was innocent.

No . . . ex post facto law shall be passed. Article I, 9

There shall be no Star Chamber proceedings.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. Amendment V

Protecting the Accused

The accused is protected against illegal imprisonment, and must be informed of the charges against him.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended. Article I, 9

Punishment shall fit the crime; it shall not mean extinction of civil rights, forfeiture of property, or penalties against kin.

No bill of attainder . . . shall be passed. Article 1, 9

The accused is entitled to be tried by his peers.

. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. Amendment VII

There is to be no forced self-incrimination.

Nor shall [he] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Amendment V

The rights of the accused are summarized:

1. . . . . a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury;

2. Within the district wherein the crime shall have been committed;

3. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

4. to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

5. to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor;

6. and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VI

Even when found guilty, the accused is protected.

1. Excessive bail shall not be required;

2. Nor excessive fines imposed;

3. Nor creel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment VIII

Treason

Treason is a crime against the nation, so serious that it must be defined with special care.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Article III, 3

The person judged guilty of treason is personally responsible for his crime, and therefore his family and kin shall not be punished.

No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood. Article III, 3

Impeachment is a special case.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments . . . and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.

Judgment . . . shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. Article I, 3

A blind spot in the original Constitution is corrected.

Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime . . . Amendment XIII

No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment XIV

The separate states are not wholly sovereign.

No state shall enter into any treaty . . . coin money . . . pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. Article I, 10

The Method of Freedom

There is a strong penchant in human nature which impels people who feel strongly about something—a good cause, say—to group their forces and use the power of government to fasten their panacea on those they’ve been unable to persuade. The Constitution is a prime example of the limitations placed upon governmental power so that people with a cause to advance must resort to education, persuasion, and example only. This is the method of freedom, and a people committed to the method of freedom find the Constitution still an apt instrument for structuring a society which maximizes freedom and opportunity for all persons. It was designed to establish a national government internally controlled by checks and balances between the separate powers. And government was to be further limited by the Federal structure itself, in which the centripetal power of Washington was to be offset by the centrifugal powers of the separate states.

The Constitution was not a perfect document, but it carried the means of its own correction, and it did embody the consensus of the people for whom freedom was the prime political good. It was workable. And it will work again whenever a significant number of people have the force of intellect to comprehend sound ideas, and the force of character to make them prevail.

Originally published in The Freeman. This article originally appeared in the April 1978 Freeman and was reprinted in September 1987 to mark the 200th anniversary of the completion of the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

Read more from the Edmund Opitz Archive.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Constitutional Restraints on Power

Please support LCC by sharing this post on your favorite social network.

Tags: constitution, Edmund Opitz, philosophy, power

Related Content:

• Liberalism Used to Mean Freedom (0)
• Equal But Not the Same (0)
• Edmund Opitz – Minister to Liberty (0)
• Defending Freedom and the Free Society (0)
• Why being a candidate can be beneficial for liberty (6)