I am long overdue to comment on what I sincerely believe to be one of the best new libertarian works from 2011, Judge Andrew Napolitano’s It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong. To a great extent, I am tempted just to stop here and tell everybody to buy the book and read it immediately, but such would make me a very poor reviewer overall. The heroic host of FreedomWatch deserves better than that.

The prime beauty of Napolitano’s work is encapsulated in the Introduction, titled “Where do Our Rights Come From?” Napolitano takes his legal background as a judge and explains the natural law and natural rights (which he says are separate but related concepts) in an incredibly powerful way. He places the natural law and our rights as human beings in contradistinction with the fake “laws” that governments impose. The “legal positivism” philosophy, which says that whatever the state says is law, is denounced as a falsehood. What is more, Christians will clearly see Napolitano’s Christian faith (with a Catholic background) through his discussions of the origins of the natural law.

Napolitano continues in the “chapters” of the book working out this understanding of the eternal law, natural law, and natural rights, approaching a variety of topics including economic freedom and property rights, free speech, freedom of association, self-defense, freedom to travel and immigration, sound money, and doing what you want with your own body. Dealing with these topics is not novel, but what makes Napolitano’s explanation special is the data presented in the book. Example after example is provided that illustrate the principles in enlightening ways, and all the examples are backed up in the notes with websites, books, articles, and various other source materials.

The “Ride on Dr. Feinberg’s Bus” chapter, for instance, was particularly interesting to read. Napolitano poses a hypothetical situation for us to consider, a ride on the bus that becomes annoying and disgusting to the point of absurdity, but that none of the actions, however annoying they may be, can be considered criminal. Without getting too detailed with the specifics, Napolitano then explains why there must be a moral limit upon what kind of actions can be made illegal (hint: only aggressive behavior). Besides colorful examples, the statistics in the book are a terrific resource for future use. Indeed, I have already referenced this book a number of times when writing articles and discussing particular topics (namely, guns and health care) with my non-libertarian friends.

Part of what excites me about the book is that it is clearly targeting people who are questioning the government, but don’t know where to start building their philosophy of government. He says, “If there is any message that I hope to communicate in this book, it is that all of us should be constantly questioning the validity of our officials’ commands… We must stop obeying the unjust laws with which the government enslaves.” Napolitano has gone back to the basics and covers the gamut of personal liberty boldly and convincingly. This is not a new thing to do, but this book is special because it does so in a more accessible way to outsiders than I generally have the pleasure of reading. I cannot imagine someone from the left or right putting down the book and rejecting the fundamental claims about law and rights without understanding that by doing so they spurn all the benefits of Western civilization itself.

I do not know if this will be a book looked upon in a century as a timeless classic. However, this is a book whose time has come. In a day when so many of us do not understand what the basis of law is, Napolitano has provided an accessible book that will remind some, educate all, enlighten our way, and encourage many to take a strong stand against the tyranny of statism.

Interested in learning more? Check out the book at Amazon.com. Remember that you support the work of LibertarianChristians.com every time you make a purchase at Amazon for 24 hours after clicking an LCC link!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong” Book Review

Let’s consider each amendment in turn.

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Government officials, however, have insisted that they can gag recipients of “national security letters” and censor broadcast ads in the name of campaign finance reform.

The Second Amendment says the people have the right “to keep and bear arms.” Government officials, however, make it difficult to keep a gun in the home and make it a crime for a citizen to carry a gun for self-protection.

The Third Amendment says soldiers may not be quartered in our homes without the consent of the owners.  This safeguard is one of the few that is in fine shape — so we can pause here for a laugh.

The Fourth Amendment says the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials, however, insist that they can conduct commando-style raids on our homes and treat airline travelers like prison inmates by conducting virtual strip searches.

The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken “for public use without just compensation.” Government officials, however, insist that they can use eminent domain to take away our property and give it to other private parties who covet it.

The Sixth Amendment says that in criminal prosecutions, the person accused is guaranteed a right to trial by jury. Government officials, however, insist that they can punish people who want to have a trial—“throwing the book” at those who refuse to plead guilty—which explains why 95 percent of the criminal cases never go to trial.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in civil cases where the controversy “shall exceed twenty dollars.” Government officials, however, insist that they can impose draconian fines on people without jury trials.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Government officials, however, insist that a life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense is not cruel.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage others “retained by the people.” Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what rights, if any, will be retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people. Government officials, however, insist that they will decide for themselves what powers they possess, and have extended federal control over health care, crime, education, and other matters the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.

Thank goodness we still have Amendment #3! The Cato Institute also posted a little video as well:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Is there still a Bill of Rights?

I might consider myself a Libertarian, except I just can’t get over that so many libertarians are atheists and against all religious expression by government. For instance, Libertarians hate Mike Huckabee for some fear of a “theocracy.” How do you address these things about your secular libertarian friends (such as Ayn Rand types)?

This question has multiple levels, and thus I want to wade carefully through the various issues wrapped in it. First off, just because there are plenty of atheist libertarians does not mean that it is a political philosophy only for atheists. On the contrary, I would argue that Christianity has lots in common with libertarianism and very little in common with statism. A philosophy that is essentially founded upon “treat others the way you want to be treated” would naturally see Christianity as favorable. See my Lessons in Liberty article for more.

As for religious expression by governments, Christian libertarians do not want to see government taking on vestments of Christianity whatsoever for two reasons: (1) the State is founded in rebellion to God and it should not be covered in Christian garb to look better than it is. We should always look to expose the State’s evils rather than “baptize” it to gain benefits; and (2) the Church universal needs to be internally protected from the trappings of the State in order to stay pure. The more governments get wrapped up in Christianity, the worse it will be for the Church.

I wouldn’t say that libertarians “hate” Huckabee because they fear theocracy (hate is a strong word anyway). Still, there is much to despise in his politics. Huckabee is a warmonger, pro-big government, pro-drug war, economically illiterate, anti-free market, anti-immigrant, and a supporter of the police state. If he supports these things because he thinks that’s what God wants, then he’s completely off his rocker and that’s worth criticizing in its own right.

I have many non-Christian, libertarian friends. Some of them love Ayn Rand, some don’t. But I have rarely had any issue in sharing my faith or dealing with sensitive topics because we have a common desire to treat others with respect. Here’s the bottom line: liberty brings people together. Libertarians come from all over the belief spectrum, but the commonality of seeking liberty transcends boundaries. As a result, you have many opportunities to live out the gospel to those around you.

********

He concluded with a statement that kind of begs a response:

Also, I can’t get over how so many Libertarians (probably not you guys) are like Barney frank on social issues but Jim DeMint on fiscal issues.

Christian libertarians do not believe that you can solve moral problems through legislation. Insofar as law exists, we seek to reduce its grasp on individual action that is not aggressive in nature. Instead, we want to use the power of social change, leveraged through the Church and local communities, to fix such problems.

Libertarians understand that the government cannot do anything right for an economy. Thus, if the government is to exist at all, it should not involve itself in anything other than the protection of basic property rights. (And many libertarians, myself included, think the State cannot even protect rights without becoming corrupt!) Hence, the government should abolish all income and property taxes and not involve itself in trade whatsoever.

Besides that, Jim DeMint is not a great example of someone being “libertarian” on fiscal issues. If you’re going to look anywhere in Congress, look to Ron Paul!

Have a question you’d like to ask? Submit yours here.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Government and Religious Expression

The Second Amendment to the American Constitution is familiar to many of us: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Along with the other nine initial amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was ratified by ten of the original thirteen States on December 15, 1791. (1)

The words “well regulated” mean well-equipped in terms of uniform and armament. The militia’s armament should be fully manned, sighted-in and ready. According to the U.S. Code, the word “Militia” means what is now called the “unorganized militia”, i.e., “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and… under 45 years of age… who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” (2) During Virginia’s ratification convention in 1788, Founding Father George Mason said: “I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” (3) Similar statements were made by Founders James Madison and Richard Henry Lee. Mason worried that someday only a privileged class of men would bear arms, resulting in tyranny. Mason also said: “the best and most effectual way to enslave” a nation is “to disarm the people.” (4)

The Second Amendment was intended to be the ultimate check against a tyrannical state. In a real sense, it is the right of revolution built into the Constitution—becoming the foremost guarantor of all other rights and the Constitution itself. Neither the legislature nor the executive may abridge its effect. Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court has ruled: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (5) Thomas Jefferson highly prized an armed citizenry, (6) and wanted to instill a permanent spirit of resistance within the American people. In his letter to William S. Smith on November 13, 1787, Jefferson wrote: “What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s [sic] liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s [sic] natural manure.”

Tench Coxe, an active political figure before and after the American Revolution, was clear regarding the intentions of the Founders with respect to bearing arms. He wrote in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their powers to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (7)

In his proposed Virginia constitution (June 1776), Jefferson wrote: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Samuel Adams and other Founders agreed. Richard Henry Lee, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, stated: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.” (8) Alexander Hamilton agreed in The Federalist Papers (no. 29) that a well-trained and well-armed citizenry would provide a check against tyranny. “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

It is clear what the Founders had in mind by the Second Amendment. The question that remains for Christians is whether or not they can apply it to their activities and still be righteous. May a Christian join in resisting the state (1) generally or (2) particularly in America because the Second Amendment allows him to do so? I would answer both questions with the affirmative. One reason that the Apostles did not attack the Roman state was because they lacked the wherewithal to do so. Unlike the American Founders, they did not have the military strength to attempt such an overthrow. They also did not have a Second Amendment to back them up. I have previously argued that Christians may “rebel” against tyrannical states when it is wise, prudent, and feasible to do so. And this fact is further enhanced by the existence of the Second Amendment.

The Bible is the Christian’s final authority for faith and practice. It says that Christians must passively submit to “rulers”, “kings”, and “governors” (Romans 13:3; 1 Peter 2:13-14). However, what happens when lower rulers are traitors to the highest ruler and supreme authority of the land? Regardless of whether or not a strong case can be made for Christian resistance against tyrants without the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, surely a case can be made for Christian resistance with them.

The Second Amendment injects a form of built-in “rebellion” into the American system, which the Apostles did not enjoy while living under Roman rule. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights have imbued all Americans (including Christians) with the hallowed right of revolution. If Christian obedience to the civil authority entails primary obedience to the American Constitution, then this fact ought to have far-reaching ramifications for the way believers interact with their culture.

(1) Pro forma ratification of the Bill of Rights was given by Vermont after it became a state in 1791 (about a year and a half after the proposed amendments were sent to the states for ratification), and by Georgia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts in 1939.

(2) 10 U.S.C. 311(2)

(3) 3 Elliot’s Debates 425

(4) 3 Elliot’s Debates 380

(5) Marbury vs. Madison , 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).

(6) “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776 [quoting from Cesare Beccaria’s On Crime and Punishment (1764)]).

(7) Tench Coxe, “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution” (writing under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian”), Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, page 2, col. 1. Coxe also said: “Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Pennsylvania Gazette , Feb. 20, 1788).

(8) Walter Bennett, ed. (1975), Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican , Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 21, 22, 124.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on June 22, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

The Second Amendment and Built-in Revolution

The central claim of libertarianism is that rights are universal. In other words, the rights of life, liberty, and property are valid for all people regardless of race, gender, culture, or the era or place in which they live. However, extending this universality to age raises challenging questions for a consistent defense of rights; specifically regarding the issue of children’s rights. Such questions include:

• Are the rights of children the same as those of adults?
• If not, how does a person transition from having the rights of a child to those of an adult?
• Are parents morally obligated to provide for children?
• Are children morally obligated to obey their parents?
• How can obligations exist without aggressing on the liberty of another?

This essay presents two competing theories popular in libertarian literature; contract theory and self-ownership. These theories attempt to address the questions above, but each has its flaws. Therefore an alternative Christian libertarian theory is presented which assumes the truth of the Bible and uses a Biblical conception of rights (which varies from the secular libertarian theory) to propose logically consistent and practically applicable answers to these questions.

Contract Theory (2-tiered theory)

According to this theory, parents, by virtue of having children, make an implicit contract in which they agree to raise the children until the point at which the offspring are able to “fend for themselves.” Children have rights, but as the children are not fully developed, and lack the knowledge, experience, and abilities to effectively understand what is in their own best interests, they are, in effect, held in trust by their parents, who act as stewards of the children’s property (i.e., themselves) until such time as their children reach maturity. There are thus two tiers of rights; those of parents and those of children. Parents, in this theory, can bring up their children in line with their own moral principles, and can force their children to live in accordance with those principles as long as they don’t abuse their children. When children reach adulthood, and thus become full self-owners, they are no longer under the authority of their parents and are then responsible for supporting themselves. At this point the “contract” is terminated.

There are numerous problems with this theory. First, concerning how and when a child becomes an adult. In our society a child is legally considered an adult at 18, but surely this is arbitrary. There is no good argument as to why 18, or any other age, is the correct cut-off point at which a child to gains full status as an adult.

Although this theory gives a plausible reason (an implicit contract) for parents to be obligated to their children, it gives no such reason for children to have obligations to their parents. Children are born into the situation and must obey their parents whether they like it or not.

Contract theory also fails to define acceptable parental “moral principles” and what constitutes “abuse.” Therefore, it is begging the question. The definition of contract theory cannot defer to external moral principles when that is exactly what it needs to defined. Delineation is needed to separate discipline from maltreatment.

Additionally most adults lack the knowledge, experience and ability to properly understand what is in their own best interest. If in the case of children this lacking necessitates parental oversight, then in the case of adults it perhaps necessitates governmental oversight. This conclusion, to make a colossal understatement, is unlikely to satisfy a libertarian.

Self-Ownership and its Logical Conclusions (1-tier theory)

The rights generated by the theory of self-ownership are often called “negative rights”. To abide by these rights (life, liberty, and property) no positive obligations are required; one must simply not murder, coerce, or steal from others. Any “positive right” or positive obligation, such as a right to food stamps or healthcare, cannot be held side-by-side with negative rights because to enforce a positive right necessarily entails the coercion of others to provide these goods or services.

It logically follows, then, that a consistent support of rights through self-ownership means that parents have no obligations towards their children and children have no obligation to their parents. Thus parents are not required to provide for their children and children are not required to obey their parents. Indeed, a supporter of the theory of self-ownership could propose that those obligations are arbitrary or only cultural and could just as well be reversed; why is it not that a child be obligated to take out loans against his own future in order to provide for his parents while the parents be obligated to obey the child? If you reject this latter situation, why not reject the former?

This leads to the belief that since a child is his own self-owned person he can emancipate himself from the “tyranny” of his parents at any age. From this theory it also follows that a child should never be forced to attend a school; forced neither by his parents nor by the state. Private schools are acceptable and children who want to go there and have the financial support to do so should be permitted to do so. Homeschooling is also an option, but only if it is acceptable to the child. The version of learning most consistent with the principle of self-ownership is unschooling, a non-coercive learning process without required textbooks, homework, or tests of any kind excepting that which the student chooses to undertake.

This view is obviously quite extreme for most people. Likely most people are unfamiliar with unschooling and brush off a theory of full children’s rights as naïve. However, despite the ignorance of the masses, this theory deserves fair treatment.

The primary advantage of this theory is its logical consistency. Obligations are incompatible with liberty; simple as that. In addition, it alleviates troubling questions such as how a person acquires the rights of an adult in the maturation from childhood. By giving the same rights to children as adults there is no need for arbitrary age barriers like 18 or 21 years old.

However, critics of this theory are not wrong to criticize it because in application and reality, it is somewhat impractical. Why does a theory that wants to give rights to children feel so impractical? Because of its premise. This theory is only as good as its premise: self-ownership. Does the concept of self-ownership make sense? A subject can own an object. A fisherman may have a boat or a farmer an ox. But does a man own himself? It seems the self is different. It is not something one has; it is what he is.

The theory of self-ownership not only necessitates anarcho-capitalism (a philosophy that advocates the elimination of government in favor of individual contracts) in the nation but it also implies anarcho-capitalism within the family. This philosophy may be successful on a national scale because of competition, but can it work in the household? If children are not obligated to obey their parents, what will the results of such a situation be? While it might have success in isolated situations with naturally even-tempered children and infinitely wise parents, it is not hard to imagine myriad possible problems developing in a child who is allowed to make all of his own choices from birth on up.

So where does this leave us? One theory is logically inconsistent and the other is hugely impractical. Fortunately, there is a Weltanschauung that allows one to maintain logical consistency while applying practical parenting. It will come as no surprise to Christians reading this that the answer is found in the Bible. Rather than self-ownership, the Bible teaches the sovereignty of God. Ethics in the Bible derive from the will and Word of God, not from political theorizing.

The Biblical View of Rights and Parent-Child Obligations.

I’ve defined rights in a previous article as universal and God-given. (See “The Proper Origin of Rights”) The origin of rights, as revealed in the Bible, is the will of God, who knows what is best for us. Rights exist primarily in the reverse way of how we usually discuss them. Rather than God granting each person some status as a deserver of rights, He commands us not to kill, steal, or coerce other individuals. When these commands are applied to all people, all people are not to be killed, stolen from, or aggressed against by other people.

Rights thus are created by the limitations against murder, theft, and aggression. A libertarian who has a non-biblical theory of rights, such as the theory of self-ownership should conclude that these 3 obligations are our ONLY obligations. Christians however should reject the non-Biblical concept of self-ownership and replace it with the Lordship of God. God owns you; you are his possession:

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. – Ephesians 1:13-14 (NIV)

Because God knows what is best for us, any obligation he gives is as important as the obligations not to murder, steal, or coerce. In addition there are other negative commands such as not bearing false witness and positive obligations such as to love our neighbor and remember the Sabbath. Ethics thus are not bounded by rights but by obligations to God; obligations of which rights are only a subset.

When rights are considered primary, as in the theory of self-ownership, no additional obligations can be added to the system. To obligate a parent to feed a child is to coerce a parent or steal from him. From the perspective of self-ownership, the obligation is clearly in conflict with the rights of liberty and property. In the Christian system, however, the obligations come from God, thus your right not to be coerced by others can exist side-by-side with obligations to others. In providing for your children you are not coerced by any human person into doing so. Since it is God, not man, that is “coercing” parents into providing for their children, we can hold to both personal liberty (of coercion from man) and obligation to man (commanded by God) simultaneously.

This perspective renders the first of the original problematic question to be easily answered. Children have rights because God grants all humans rights. In fact, in the Biblical view of rights, there is no status distinction based on age or maturity. Rather than an absolute status based on age or maturity, the terms parent (instead of adult) and child are used in a relational sense and additional obligations are given on the basis of these relationships. The primary additional obligation for children is found in the commandments: Honor thy father and mother. In the opposite direction, parents are obligated to teach their children.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” – which is the first commandment with a promise – “that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.” Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. – Ephesians 6:1-4 (NIV)

The obligation for children to honor their parents is without end in time. In the biblical commandment of “Honor thy father and mother” no age is referenced. This honoring should not cease or diminish with age, even if society has established an arbitrary age of “adulthood.” It is a commandment for one’s entire life. Children are always children (of their parents) and must always honor them.

In addition to honor (or perhaps included in the term) is the command to obey. Designating the parents (or perhaps specifically the father) as the leader is a practical solution to potential discord in the household. This leadership is tempered by a command back to fathers not to abuse this power.

Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. – Colossians 3:20-21 (NIV)

While the child’s obligation is to honor and obey his parents, the parents’ obligation is to teach their children. Though paid schooling and tutors are acceptable supplements, parents must teach their children themselves. The purpose of education is to raise Christian men and women by teaching them the Word of God. It is not reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic nor geometry, geography, and geology that must be taught; but the Bible, the very Word of God. The former subjects are optional; the Bible indispensable.

Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Deuteronomy 11:18-19 (NIV)

The parents’ obligation to teach their children the Bible, like the child’s obligation to honor his parents, is without end. As the child becomes more knowledgeable it will be less necessary for parent-led Bible studies and the child will be able to continue on his own.

Similarly, a child will eventually be able to provide himself with food and shelter. Until that point, such also is a parental obligation. Naturally a parent would not be able to teach a child if he were not also providing physical care such as shelter and sustenance. Thus these things are surely implied parental obligations when a child is not yet able to earn enough for his own support.

The obligation of children to honor their parents and of parents to teach their children has thus eliminated the issues prevalent in the two libertarian theories presented. It has been shown that liberty amongst men and obligations to men from God are consistent. At the same time these obligations provide solutions to the questions of practicality in the child-parent relationship.

Summary of children’s rights theories:

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Children’s Rights – A Libertarian Dilemma with a Christian Answer

Standing for truth or civil rights is a scary business with dire consequences at times. It may even lead to war. But what is a “just war”? When may Christians participate in war? Who are the biggest beneficiaries of war? May Christians kill each other in self-defense at home or when in combat?

Christians may only participate in just wars (i.e., wars of self-defense rather than aggression). What ultimately determines whether a war is just is the believer’s conscience after apprehending a candid understanding of the facts—notwithstanding claims of rulers that declare a conflict to be just. The reason Christians can participate in a collective defense effort is little different than the reason why they can undertake self-defense against predators individually. They are called upon to promote peace by preserving life, liberty, and property. And sometimes that call leads them to repel predators by force.

One implication of justifiable self-defense is the sad reality that Christians might end up killing some of their brethren when they engage in collective action (i.e., war). There are always those who will try to increase chaos and misery in society by abridging fundamental rights, and Christians who cherish peace will be right to stand up for life, liberty, and property—even by force of arms. Yet, Christians must take special care to minimize or eliminate bloodshed, especially when some of their brethren’s lives may be in jeopardy. Sometimes this objective is difficult to achieve, with sinful choices of assailants leading to personal disaster at the hand of a brother defending his fundamental rights.

It is not sinful for a Christian to kill a brother who is attacking him either by robbing him or firing at him in an opposing army. A Christian can hardly check the Christian credentials of an unknown assailant prior to defending himself. Consider that there were undoubtedly professing believers on both sides in both the American War for Independence and the War Between the States. While the reprehensible circumstances are an abomination to God, there are often deadly consequences from sin (Galatians 6:7)— particularly in the case of aggressive behavior (Jeremiah 19:7; 21:9; 38:2; Matthew 26:52; Luke 21:24).

What special obligation does a Christian have to know about the spiritual condition of his assailant? Building on the premise of Christians in combat being accepted, the righteous brother will surely be troubled by the thought of killing his sinning brother in the opposing army as a matter of collective self-defense. The rule of thumb must be that a Christian prefers his brother, meaning that he should do whatever he can to know the status of a potential menace prior to confronting him. If he can ascertain that his opponent is a believer he must try to avoid conflict, which can be especially difficult if the opponent speaks a different language or communication is otherwise unfeasible. In most wartime cases, it will be impossible to avoid conflict or find out the spiritual status of an adversary. Thus, a Christian must rely upon prayer to protect his brethren and Providence to direct all things justly. Of course, a Christian can avoid this problem altogether simply by refusing to enlist, even if he is conscripted. When in doubt, this tactic may be best. However, in the case of a just war, a Christian must be left to his liberty to take up arms and fight for the glory of God and peace among men if he wishes.

Nevertheless, there will be occasions when a Christian’s conscience will not permit him to fight. Should Christians resist the draft? At times they should. They cannot support aggression. They are to undertake actions which ultimately promote peace and prosperity for their families and the church, as well as the glory of God and the expansion of His kingdom. But what about resisting the draft in just wars of national defense too? Well, ordinarily this concern is mute since Christians will spontaneously rally to support a just cause. But they could in theory still justly resist the draft as a violation of individual liberty, becoming a de facto form of enslavement. “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5).

What can be said with confidence is that Christians may only enlist to defend their homes and country—and may never attack another country in a war of aggression. It is hard to see, therefore, how a Christian could have rightfully been part of either the British loyalists or Northern (Lincolnite) armies. The same thing could be said of the more recent conflicts in Iraq and Vietnam (and perhaps others).

Furthermore, we can confidently assert that Christians should not favor or implement the use of weapons of mass destruction, knowing that innocent people—including many Christians—will unavoidably be killed. Christians are to sow peace in the world and to not do harm to a neighbor (Psalm 34:14; Matthew 5:9; Romans 13:10; 14:19; 2 Timothy 2:22; Hebrews 12:14; 1 Peter 3:1). Further, one’s theology of warfare must be reconciled with passages like Galatians 6:10: “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” The notion of nuclear, chemical, or biological obliteration is repugnant to such biblical doctrine.

Remember that states and rulers are the greatest beneficiaries of war, along with certain business interests that profit from trade during wartime—or that manufacture weapons and harness energy for the war machine. Christians must not participate in evil but overcome it with good (Romans 12:21). So let us not be accomplices of wickedness, or of the vile deeds and unjust wars of the “kings of the earth” (Isaiah 24:1; Revelation 16:14; 18:3, 9) and the contemporary rulers of America.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on July 27, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Can a Christian fight?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

What “rights” do Christians have?

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson stated: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness [or property].” However, this assertion must be supported—if not by theological premise then at least by social custom. If the vast majority of the members of society do not “hold these truths” then the rights to life, liberty and property will not be respected. A “self-evident” right or truth is one which is, according to the dictionary, “evident without proof or reasoning; producing certainty or conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind.”

Nonetheless, the idea that human beings have such fundamental or “natural” rights is not evident to many people. For instance, the Marxists are myriad who deny that human beings possess a right to property. An even greater number of people believe that only certain classes of human beings have rights to life or liberty. Unborn human beings are not considered to have rights until at least twenty weeks after conception—if not up until the point of birth (or beyond)—by many intelligent people. In some places, people regard those classified as incapacitated or economically unproductive as not being rights-bearers.

Still others find it perfectly acceptable to enslave certain classes of human beings—even the author of the Declaration of Independence owned Negro slaves! One need only consider the treatment of Indians and the Chinese Coulees to see that thinking regarding the abridgment of rights for certain classes of human beings extended far beyond the Founding Fathers. Furthermore, confiscation of income and wealth from certain classes of human beings by progressive and other kinds of taxation is not only commonplace but is widely considered to be civilized and just behavior.

So in what sense is the veracity of fundamental rights of life, liberty and property self-evident? Apparently, such rights were self-evident to the Founders, at least insofar as they were the province of Caucasians (and perhaps only Christian ones). For them, their rights were evident without proof or reasoning, producing certainty or conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind. It was obvious that they held natural rights to life, liberty, and property. It also made no difference whether savages or uncivilized human beings (like Indians, Negroes, Turks or Chinese) agreed with the self-evident nature of their rights.

The Founders knew that in order for society to be civil, and for men to be able to have effective social cooperation, some ground rules must be set down and agreed upon. If there would be no mutual and diligent respect for fundamental rights, then all their work in forming a civil government and its laws would be in vain. Setting aside the agendas and personal preferences of any members, they boiled down the rights to be respected to life, liberty, and property—the same three “natural” rights that philosopher John Locke had set forth in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690).

Locke based much of his thinking in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Man, being created in the image of God, was not to be killed by other men except for a capital offense (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6), implementing and confirming man’s right to life. Permanent, involuntary slavery has always been an abomination for God’s people (Leviticus 25:39; Nehemiah 5:5; John 8:32, 35; 1 Corinthians 7:21; Galatians 5:1). The ownership and use of property to sustain a man’s life, as well as for his family and heirs and the people of God, is clearly expressed and its integrity is not questioned (Genesis 13:2; 23:9; 50:13; Numbers 27:8-11; 2 Samuel 19:32; 1 Kings 21:1-19; 1 Chronicles 27:31; 2 Chronicles 17:13; 32:29; Proverbs 13:22; 22:28; 23:10; Jeremiah 37:12; Matthew 25:14-30; Acts 5:4; 1 Timothy 6:17-19).

As time rolled on, the classes of human beings whose fundamental rights are self-evident has expanded to include all races. Chattel slavery is now outlawed in nearly every country. The only classes currently excluded from being full rights-bearers are those who suffer from a physical, mental, or developmental defect (including being unborn). However, another important element has entered in: these rights are no longer natural but are instead considered to be granted and held at the pleasure of the state. And even though human beings are rarely property, they are still routinely conscripted and have their labor or property extorted from them under color of law, effectively rendering them slaves—at least in an abstract sense.

Unlike the vision of the Founders, one class of human beings has now taken charge of deciding if and when other classes of human beings will enjoy the exalted level of being rights-bearers. Politicians, judges, and other rulers, acting upon the lead of savant philosophers, have taken the chief role in determining which human beings have rights, effectively rendering void the ideals of Jefferson and the other Founders. In a sobering sense, history is the record of how wide or how narrow has been the class of human beings who are afforded rights.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on July 13, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Natural Rights – How do they work?

Do Christians have a right of self-defense? If so, under what circumstances may they defend themselves? May they only defend themselves against criminals or against civil authorities too? Are there any instances in which Christians must not defend themselves? These are tough questions that require more than just knee-jerk or cavalier responses. Indeed, a lot is riding on the doctrine of self-defense. For instance, if self-defense against other human beings were not justified under any circumstances, then women with tubal pregnancies would have to perish with their unborn children (on account of bleeding from a ruptured fallopian tube), criminals would have free course over the goods that believers have “stored up” (Proverbs 13:22; Ecclesiastes 11:1; Matthew 25:16-21), and revolution would always be wrong.

If self-defense is wrong then we ought all to be anarchists. I do not mean “anarchy” in the sense of chaos but rather in its scientific sense of a civilization without any central and organized civil government. The dictionary defines anarchy as: “Absence of any form of political authority.” The fundamental reason why government exists ultimately rests on the conviction that self-defense is right. Pure pacifists neither need nor want a government. They are apolitical and should be, logically, anarchists. Why then are Christians not anarchists? Only if the Bible supports the doctrine of self-defense would the principle of Christians using limited government for purposes of creating a common defense be justified. [Editor’s clarification: The official position of LCC is that Christianity and anarchy are not incompatible because anarchism does not immediately imply pacifism. Anarchism is the lack of a human ruler, not the lack of all means of self-defense. Nonetheless, Mr. Cobin’s original text has been preserved.]

In the same vein we may ask: “Why do Americans have (or even want) a political authority?” According to the doctrine of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are established among Men” to secure our rights of life, liberty, and property. The Constitution sets forth the role of civil government as well: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The third article of the (sadly) forgotten Articles of Confederation states: “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”

In other words, in the most fundamental sense, the Founders wanted a government (but not a state) in order to protect them from predators. Politically, Americans covenanted together for a “common defense” because at some level self-defense is not practicable. Civil government becomes an extension of our right of self-defense and our desire for self-preservation. Nevertheless, regardless of what American political philosophy may have been, should those who adhere to biblical Christianity adopt it today?

Several New Testament passages can be used to support the doctrine of self-defense for a Christian. First, John the Baptist did not condemn soldiers for doing their job, part of which included killing people, but only warned against abusing their office. “Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, ‘And what shall we do?’ So he said to them, ‘Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages’” (Luke 3:14). Second, Christ directed that Christians take up arms useful in self-defense: “he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36).

Third, the Apostle Paul implies that Christian men ought to defend their families as part of their provision: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8). Note that Moses was not condemned for killing an Egyptian while defending one of his brethren (Acts 7:24, 28). Finally, although we cannot generate any conclusive argument from silence, it is notable—taking the preceding passages into account—that Christ did not condemn prudent planning for (and use of) warfare as a proper function of a wise king (Luke 14:31). Moreover, there are plenty of examples in the Old Testament of God condoning warfare and men going to battle. And God does not change, even if the administration of His kingdom does.

Clearly there is a sense in which Christians are to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39), suffer, and show forth the glory of God in doing so rather than defending themselves. There is a time in which we must suffer and die (Matthew 5:11; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:3). Nevertheless, the New Testament does not indicate that Christians are called upon to be the world’s doormats. Thus, in the current administration of God’s kingdom, there seems to be room for Christians to pursue liberty and at times defend themselves against tyranny. In the final analysis, Christians can bring glory to God either by suffering or through promoting liberty.

Originally published in The Times Examiner on May 11, 2005.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Do Christians have the right to defend themselves? (Even from the state?)

——

WASHINGTON – As elected officials put on a dog-and-pony media show about a temporary shutdown of small parts of the federal government, the Libertarian Party calls for a permanent shutdown of most of the federal government.

Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict said, "Just think how a permanent government shutdown would allow so many Americans to regain the blessings of liberty.

"Education would blossom as the Department of Education ended its War on Learning, no longer wasting our money and preventing educational innovation with one-size-fits-all centralized mandates.

"Job opportunities at companies big and small would multiply, providing opportunity and choice for American workers.

"The world would enjoy peace as we withdrew our forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Our government spends almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. Millions of industrious men and women who work for the military and its contractors could be focusing on building up our economy, rather than tearing down others’.

"Crime would plummet as the government’s War on Drugs ended, no longer sustaining a giant violent black market and overfilling our prisons.

"The life of many poorer Americans would improve as welfare programs stopped, no longer trapping low-income families in an endless cycle of government dependency.

"All Americans would feel a huge burden lifted every April, as they were no longer required to wrestle with a byzantine and oppressive IRS.

"But most importantly, Americans would once again be free of unjust and unconstitutional violations of their unalienable rights."

Benedict added, "We’re not talking about eliminating the federal government. We want to end all federal activities that are not authorized by the Constitution, and we want to cut everything else as much as we can. In 2000, the federal government spent $1.8 trillion. This year it’s expected to spend $3.8 trillion. Things are going the wrong way — fast."

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

——

I’m more of a fan of completely shutting down the Federal Government, but this proposal is far better than that of Rand Paul, who has specifically stated that he wants to provide an incentive for Congressmen to go back to work. I’m sorry Rand, I appreciate you and all that, but every day Congress is in session is prosperity and peace sucked away from this country. Don’t try to keep it running, shut it down now!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Libertarians call for permanent government shutdown