Ron Paul is clearly the only candidate not running against Barack Obama or against the other GOP candidates. He is running to promote liberty and a restoring of the Republic to the Constitution. He does criticize Obama, but more importantly he describes our social problems as stemming from something greater and more problematic.

Yet one thing doesn’t seem to be clear to Ron Paul supporters: Ron Paul is not the hope of America, or even the world. Bleeding Heart Libertarian Matt Zwolinski cautions Paul’s supporters into being overly excited about a Paul Presidency, and has taken considerable heat from it. In short, he said that the time supporting Ron Paul could be better spent. Maybe, but that’s too sharp a dichotomy for me. Elections are for a season. Supporting institutions like the Institute for Humane Studies can continue beyond the 2012 election cycle. Call me crazy, but I’m 100% sure Ron Paul won’t run for president again. So let’s seize the day. And if we have enough time and money, we can do both.

But Zwolinski hints at a deeper point that he doesn’t quite explicitly say: Ron Paul is not the ultimate solution to our social problems. To be fair, I truly, honestly, deeply believe that no Ron Paul supporter believes a Paul Presidency will usher in the New Millennium (or something like it). I’m an enthusiastic supporter of Paul (if you don’t believe me, check out my Facebook). Yet as a Christian I am reminded that the hope of the world doesn’t rest in worldly institutions, as much as they need dramatic reform. The hope of the world doesn’t rest in the administrations of men. It doesn’t come through mere human efforts.

A Ron Paul White House would yield tremendous positive results for society and the world. Fewer nations would be threatened by our military. Diplomats around the world might begin to trust our nation. Children will have their fathers return from foreign lands. Fewer troops will suffer from psychological disorders. The importance of sound money will become center stage in the national conversation. Those changes are truly needed. Let’s not underestimate or devalue those outcomes.

But the hope of the world doesn’t come through the actions of one administration. It comes from the members of society who are committed to change, starting from the inside out. Those individuals will shape the world around them. God’s will done “on earth as it is in heaven” will happen when the love of Jesus is demonstrated throughout society. When followers of Jesus funnel their gifts, talents, resources, abilities, and passions for the good of the world, they become God’s image to mankind so real hope is present.* And even though we are ardent supporters of Ron Paul, this thoroughly hope-filled belief is the true position of LibertarianChristians.com.

Perhaps former presidential candidate Barack Obama said it best: “We are the change we’ve been waiting for!” 

—–

* It’s far too easy to ignore the virtue of suffering, something Western Christians avoid at all costs. When we suffer along with our fellow human beings, we bring ourselves closer to each other and to God in a way unlike any other. True “social justice” (whatever that phrase implies) requires it, otherwise change is anything but real. But that’s for a future article…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ron Paul is NOT Obama

David Neff at Christianity Today wonders if an evangelical meeting to anoint a presidential candidate is a bad idea.

Three articles at Antiwar.com caught my attention this week: Who Wants War With Iran?, Blood On Whose Hands, and Another Reason Not to Go to War So Often.

William Grigg writes about the current crop of presidential candidates who think state murder is a “moral enterprise.”

I mentioned this article yesterday but I would like to highlight again Anthony Gregory’s piece on LRC about why the left’s excuses for not supporting Ron Paul are ridiculous.

Doug Bandow writes in the Huffington Post about that perennial question, Who Would Jesus Vote For? Should we even ask?

Ron Paul Schools Santorum:

I heard about Word Dynamo from my colleagues at UT, and I have to say it is super fun. If you enjoy wordsmith-ing around, you’ll love this site.

If you have interesting news you would like to share, make sure to post in the comments below!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week, January 15-21, 2012

Throughout the twentieth century, opponents of U.S. intervention in foreign wars were smeared as isolationists.

Conservative and Republican opponents of Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, although they may argue and fight among themselves, are all agreed on one thing: Ron Paul is an isolationist and espouses a dangerous foreign policy of isolationism.

Actor and conservative activist Chuck Norris insists that “Texas Representative Ron Paul’s bent toward being an isolationist who wants to bring home every one of our 572,000 troops abroad makes the anti-terror, pro-military hairs on the back of my neck stand.”

Speaking in South Carolina just before Christmas, Newt Gingrich “sharply criticized Mr. Paul for what he said were his isolationist views on foreign policy.”

While stumping in Iowa the week before the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum “urged Republicans to carefully study Mr. Paul’s isolationist foreign policy views.”

Tune in to the leading conservative talk-show hosts or read the comments posted by their followers on right-wing websites and you will hear and see Ron Paul regularly described as an isolationist.

Okay, so what would an isolationist America look like? What if the United States really retreated from the world stage, avoided engagement with the rest of the world, and actually did isolate itself from every other country?

Under a real foreign policy of isolationism, the United States would refuse to participate in the Olympics, refuse to make treaties, refuse to issue visas, refuse to allow foreign goods to be imported, refuse to allow U.S. goods to be exported, refuse to allow foreign students to study at American universities, refuse to allow American students to study at foreign universities, refuse to allow foreign investment, refuse to extradite criminals, refuse to exchange diplomats, refuse to allow cultural exchanges, refuse to participate in disaster-relief efforts, refuse to allow travel abroad, refuse to engage in diplomacy, refuse to deliver mail to or receive mail from foreign countries, refuse to allow emigration, and refuse to allow immigration.

Under a real policy of isolationism, living in the United States would be about as bad as living in East Germany, North Korea, or Myanmar.

Is that the kind of America that Ron Paul envisions?

The last time Ron Paul ran for president, he made it perfectly clear that he espoused anything but isolationism:

Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off-limits to them.

American citizens would be free to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities.

No one has ever accused Dr. Paul of changing his position.

Why, then, is Ron Paul accused of being an isolationist? When his critics hurl this epithet at him, they know full well that he is not an isolationist at all. Here is Rick Santorum on Ron Paul’s “dangerous” foreign policy: “One thing he can do as commander in chief is he can pull all our troops home. He can shut down our bases in Germany. He can shut down the bases in Japan. He can pull our fleets back.” According to Santorum and his fellow conservative and Republican warmongers Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and the Weekly Standard, Ron Paul is an isolationist, not because he wants America to be isolated from the rest of the world, but because he wants to terminate the empire, stop fighting foreign wars, close the foreign military bases, cut the bloated military budget, end foreign aid, halt all offense spending, bring all the troops home, limit the military to the actual defense of the United States, and stop being the policeman of the world.

The foreign policy of Ron Paul is a foreign policy of noninterventionism. In a speech on the House floor several months before the United States invaded Iraq, Paul made his case for a noninterventionist foreign policy of peace, prosperity, and liberty:

A proper foreign policy of nonintervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade, and open travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas.

We should avoid entangling alliances and stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations — no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances that we should avoid include the complex alliances in the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO.

The basic moral principle underpinning a noninterventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on nonviolence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risks financially and militarily.

Ron Paul is merely echoing the foreign policy of Thomas Jefferson, who said,

No one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another.

We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe.

I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment.

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.

A noninterventionist foreign policy is a policy of peace, commerce, travel, cultural exchange, diplomacy, neutrality, and free trade.

A noninterventionist foreign policy means no preemptive strikes, invasions, occupations, bombings, threats, sanctions, embargoes, foreign aid, assassinations, imperialism, meddling, bullying, regime changes, nation building, entangling alliances, spreading democracy, NATO-like commitments, peacekeeping operations, forcibly opening markets, policing the world, and no foreign military bases.

It is a sad day for America and Americans when not supporting an aggressive, belligerent, interventionist, and meddling foreign policy means that you are an isolationist.

Is Ron Paul isolationist?

Is France isolationist because its navy doesn’t patrol our coasts? Is Canada isolationist because it doesn’t have military bases below the 49th parallel? Is Germany isolationist because it doesn’t have tens of thousands of troops stationed in the United States? Is Brazil isolationist because it doesn’t kill Americans with drone strikes? Is Russia isolationist because it doesn’t build military bases in scores of countries? Is Moldova isolationist because it doesn’t send its soldiers to fight foreign wars? Was Ronald Reagan an isolationist because he pulled U.S. troops out of Lebanon?

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. It is practical, sane, moral, just, and right. It is the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers — and Ron Paul.

Originally published at The Future of Freedom Foundation on January 17, 2012.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Is Ron Paul an Isolationist?

In the field of Republican candidates sans Ron Paul, you essentially have a bunch of ideologically identical bozos. On all the issues that matter, they are essentially the same (or worse) than Obama himself. Take health care, for instance. Can any candidate, other than Paul, offer one piece of substantial evidence that they do not want to replace Obamacare with some form of Republicare? As the wise sage Yoda once said, “Size matters not.” Republicare may be a smaller version of Obamacare in the details, but never forget that in principle there is no difference.

The candidate’s positions on health care should be proof-positive that none of them care about the free market. Only Ron Paul has consistently defended the free market and demands that the federal government stop interfering in health care and otherwise. But there is more to the story.

Regarding taxation, the candidates (sans Paul again) completely miss the point. Of course they all want to cut taxes, this is the bread and butter of Republican rhetoric (other than pro-life language). But taxation itself is not the only variable in the equation. In fact, it doesn’t matter if you cut taxes without cutting spending, because any deficit incurred by the government is simply delayed taxation.

All candidates (sans Paul) advocate essentially the same kind of spending spree that Obama has been on the past three years, and Bush II for the previous eight. For what it’s worth, Barack Obama is essentially the continuation and logical conclusion of George W. Bush, and the current candidates (sans Paul) are in their essence the continuation and logical conclusion of Obama. Again, only Ron Paul has provided a plan to substantially reduce the actual size and scope of government power and to substantially reduce taxes in tandem.

So on these key issues, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are no different than Obama, and Paul is left standing. Why, then, do conservatives, and especially “conservative” Christians, avoid Ron Paul?

It probably has to do with their devotion to war. In that case, however, the conservative case against Obama must be abandoned. Every ounce of Obama’s dubious anti-war leanings touted during his campaign has been completely ripped to shreds, yet we still hear that Obama is “anti-military” for some reason. Christian warmongers should be proud of Obama.

Interestingly enough, if you want to see who troops support you should once again look to Ron Paul. Just as in 2008, military donors prefer Ron Paul over other candidates. Their second choice, interestingly enough, is Obama. What does the right – especially the Christian right – think that means?

Furthermore, I continue to be amazed at how much the right says they care about spending, yet turn a blind eye to the trillion dollar Iraq War and repeatedly call for military action against Iran. Which pocketbook do they care about?

On every issue of spending, the other three candidates are fundamentally and ideologically no different than Obama. Yet they still hate Obama.

On every issue of defense, the other three candidates are fundamentally and ideologically no different than Obama. Yet they still hate Obama.

On every issue of spending and defense that supposedly matter to Republicans, only Paul can lay claim to a realistic solution. On every issue that matters*, Ron Paul has been right and the other candidates wrong. Again, how can anyone claim a dime’s worth of difference between Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Obama? It certainly isn’t enough to write home about.

Yet “conservatives” and Christians still flock to crooks, liars, and at least one pathological adulterer. Why is this?

Wanting to get rid of Obama is fine, but don’t kid yourself. When you love war more than liberty, you will make crooked compromises. When you begin to truly appreciate what liberty means, I think you will find more than just your views on the free market changing.

This post was inspired in part by Anthony Gregory’s piece regarding the left on the LewRockwell.com Blog.

* One caveat: immigration. I am not 100% on board with Paul’s views on immigration, but they are still much better than anyone else in the field.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Weighing Political Planks and the Obama Dilemma

The coverage that the article received was massive, and I imagine that it has been the most widely disseminated piece I have ever written. I can only hope that it will bring more and more people to a better of understanding of Christianity and liberty.

Many other websites mentioned it as well, here is a list of a number of places where I saw links to the piece in some way. Some are just quotes and a link, some are positive, and some are negative. Nonetheless, I appreciate it.

• First Thoughts, the blog of the academic journal of Christianity and public life First Things. This is a thoughtful post to which I may respond here.
• Acton Power Blog (indirectly, through First Things)
• LewRockwell.com
• Lew Rockwell’s Political Theatre
• Topsy (tracking Twitter mentions)
• Revelations Radio Network (see podcast on 12-28)
• Twylah.com (pretty much a WaPo On Faith double)
• Digest of Biblical Civil Law
• Mark McIntire
• Zionica
• Skyler Collins
• Lots of RonPaulForums links (too many to list)
• Free North Carolina
• HotAir.com
• Butler Liberty Law
• Ron Paul’s Campaign of Ideas
• The Bastiat Institute
• RonPaulNews.net
• Paul’s Ponderings
• Kansas Bob
• Values and Capitalism
• Pretense of Knowledge
• Transterrestrial Musings
• Reddit.com and Digg.com
• Daily Paul
• Strike the Root
• Urban Ethics and Theory (Lisa Schweitzer)
• Peach Pundit
• LA4Liberty
• On Now to the Third Level
• BigJournalism.com (to which I responded here)’
• U.S. Catholic Daily Links (for two days in a row!)
• SBC Today (blog of the Southern Baptist Convention)
• All Things Expounded
• Curmudgeons.net
• The Reformed Citizen

There are many more, I am sure. Feel free to add more in the comments. Overall, I saw hundreds of Facebook shares, hundreds of Twitter mentions, and hundreds upon hundreds of comments on articles all over the net. Thanks again!

One of the best results is that the piece has skyrocketed to the top of search engine results for searches including both “Christian” and “libertarian”. LibertarianChristians.com has historically been ranked very highly as well, and so this raises the visibility of the site and our viewpoints even more. Outstanding!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Massive coverage of the “Can a Christian be a Libertarian” WaPo article

She begins by discussing money and quoting my article:

Libertarians talk a lot about economics, and rightfully so. Money is central to a healthy economy. Christians are also concerned about money; in fact God talks frequently about money in the Bible. [Horn]

Actually, money is mentioned more in the Bible than anything else. I’ve written previously of this here. Scriptures tell us that money is a tool with which evil can control man. The Bible obviously doesn’t give political doctrine specific to the Fed, but rather as Christians we are taught to use our access to money as a way of evangelism through deed. This is something libertarianism leaves out, the God part. Are libertarians conservatives without God? That’s a question friends and I have discussed.

Yes, money is mentioned in the Bible a lot. Nonetheless, money is is not “a tool with which evil can control man.” “Evil” does not “control” man. Man has sinful desires, and he chooses to follow after those desires and commit evil actions. This is an important distinction, lest we become metaphysical dualists. Sin is indeed personified sometimes in the Bible, but it is clearly absurd to take such personification too far. As James 1:14-15 tells us, “But each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”

The language of James likens our sinful state to a struggle going on inside us, and it fits very well with what Paul says in Romans 7. Still, never do Paul or James imply that some ethereal “evil” controls the Christian. On the contrary, Romans 6:6-7 says, “For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin – because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.”

Money is indeed a tool, and man can use it do great good, or great evil, or anything in between. I would argue that money has a far greater potential for good than for evil, as is evidenced by the market ecosystem that produces such amazing things as, for instance, computers and the internet, or Bibles and theology books.

Now, although Loesch is right that there is no specific doctrine for the Federal Reserve, Loesch’s statements above are completely non-responsive to the actual substance of my argument: (1) that we need sound money in order to have genuine prosperity and to avoid the business cycle, and (2) sound money, as opposed to state fiat, is the proper moral and Biblical position. Stranger still, she somehow transitions from talking about money – and ignoring the Biblical point about money I was trying to make – to declaring that libertarians leave out “the God part.”

This statement is rather silly and also, quite frankly, rather insulting. It is clearly meant to stand in contrast to Christian “conservatives,” whom I suppose categorically make sure God is in every one of their doctrines, including big government national security and war, big government social security, big government education, and big government health care so long as it’s sponsored by Republicans like Bush or Romney.

More importantly, Loesch misses the point of the article. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that expounds upon natural law, and whose critical ethic is the non-aggression principle. Though not all libertarians believe in God (just as not all conservatives believe either), a vast number admit from the outset that natural law comes from a higher authority. It is transcendent to man, and no man is exceptional to it. The Christian libertarian takes the particular position that natural law was created by the God of the Bible, and that natural law will always stand in concordance with Biblical revelation. This stands in stark contrast to the typical conservative stance that is perfectly fine with giving special moral privilege to American leaders for various purposes regardless of what natural law or the Bible says.

Loesch moves on to war and peace, quoting my article once again:

It is truly unfortunate that modern American churches seem to think the state’s means of “spreading democracy” through aggressive war is more important than spreading the peaceful message of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus came to bring “peace on earth, good will to men,” and by extension the Christian’s goal ought to be the same. [Horn]

This passage presupposes that every conflict in which the United States has ever engaged is due to the United States’s frat boy aggression and need to sow its seed of democracy by force.

No, it does not make such a presupposition, but it does imply that I think the litany of recent wars is completely evil. Such an implication would be correct, in fact. Reader, if you are curious about the effects of American interventionism over time, perhaps you should peruse this article on the Middle East. George W. Bush eventually even admitted that the point of the Second Iraq War was to bring democracy to the Middle East, after the lies about WMDs and such were fully abandoned and they needed a new excuse to continue the violence.

Lest you think I spoke too quickly about the American churches at large – and I mean this in the general sense rather than every church everywhere in America – how many Christians noticed when the Department of State released its report saying that there are no more churches in Afghanistan? How many who did notice thought that this just might be related to American interventionism in Afghanistan for the past 10 years? Christians are typically fine with praying for their military members (I get that), but rarely, if ever, do you hear prayers on the behalf of the innocent people whom their military members directly affect. Where are their priorities?

One year after the Civil War was over, Church of Christ luminary David Lipscomb said: “Why is it that we see men willing to sacrifice property, the comforts of home, the sweets of the domestic and family relationship, undergo privations and sorrows, suffer hunger, and cold, and nakedness, and want for long and weary years, and freely give up life itself at the bidding of earthly rulers and for the sake of corrupt and perishing human kingdoms, while so few are willing to undergo the slightest inconvenience or suffer the least self-denial for the heavenly and eternal kingdom?” Yes, why is it?

Furthermore, it’s odd to me that a follower of limited government would advocate for a state-endorsed religion as a way of nation building, supplanting the previous logical fallacy.

How Loesch discerned from my writings that I support some sort of state-endorsed religious means of nation-building I will never know. Libertarians don’t endorse nation-building by governments at all. If anything, we are interested in spreading our values via peaceful interaction, never through force. Quite a “Christian” thought, I might add.

This author quotes Paul more than the Bible, which tells me everything I need to know about this piece. Ron Paul is not God.

This is potentially the worst accusation in Loesch’s post. Honestly, I do not feel as though I even have to answer it, because the quality of the statement is so poor and the accusation so ridiculous that it should be obvious how wrong it is. I will, however, make one note. When the Washington Post asked me to write an article for them, they requested 600 to 800 words on why some Christians embrace libertarianism and how Ron Paul fits into that. I cannot cover all topics nor can I quote everything I might want. I gave it a good shot, and even so my article ended up being just over 850 words. Loesch, you need to stop reading into my article too much, and trying to make me say things I have never said.

What is truly unfortunate is that by making the universal straw man that “modern American churches seem to think,” i.e. all churches, the author betrays a (conscious or subconscious) prejudice against churches based on his own presupposition.

Whoops, Loesch continues her uncharitable and fallacious reading! She completely misses the mark here, and if she had done her homework she would have probably realized that I love the church and, as I mentioned, even work part-time for one. In fact, I have frequently chided Christians who think that they can just get along without the fellowship of other Christians or who criticize all organized religion. Also, I love how she can read into my subconscious. That’s just outstanding. 

Horn misses a huge part of Christ’s work, exemplified in Matthew 10:34:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Generally, you need to do something called “exegesis” to understand the meaning of a passage like this. You cannot just proof-text Matthew 10:34 to refute the peace-loving nature of Jesus and that pesky “blessed are the peacemakers” passage. Or perhaps you should also call your mother, father, and siblings regularly just to say you have turned against them? (See the next verse.) Moreover, how does one extend this idea that Jesus knew conflict was coming spiritually between people into something akin to “peace between nations is a bad thing”?

I get that Horn wants to promote his stylized version of Biblical interpretation, but he should realize that Ron Paul’s words carry no weight compared to Christ’s, and he perhaps should study the Word of God more than Paul’s words, especially those newsletters.

Again, this statement is so off-center it is barely worthy of response. Besides the blatant insult regarding the newsletters, again she accuses me of elevating Ron Paul to god-status. Loesch, did you not realize I have a theology graduate degree from a reputable, theologically-conservative seminary? Of course not, because you didn’t do your homework. I don’t do “stylized interpretation,” Dana, I do scholarship. If you want to argue with me like scholars do then go right ahead if you can, but leave the needlessly incendiary comments at home.

There’s also this third graph:

Thus, Christian libertarians think that government power should be limited, sound money and truly free markets should return, aggressive war must cease and civil liberties must be preserved.

Scratch “libertarian” from this, it’s something every Christian I know believes, but how does Horn think our rights are secured? By lying prostrate before our enemies when they attack?

“Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”
― Thomas Jefferson

Does that make our Founding Fathers that misused and abused term: “neocons?”

I highly doubt that every Christian Loesch knows truly believes in these principles. I doubt even Loesch agrees with the principle of sound money based on her earlier remarks. Besides, I would guess that the conservatives she knows thinks “limited” government means whatever Republicans want to do, like initiate unconstitutional wars, bailout entire industries, control education of children, and sponsor massive government healthcare programs. I would highly suspect she also knows plenty of Christian warmongers, who think all the aggressive wars of recent years are justifiable, and plenty of Christians who think personal lives ought to be regulated by the government in multitudinous ways. Unlike “conservatives,” libertarians actually care about limiting all government power, not just the power of Democrats.

Then, once again, she completely misrepresents what I said in my article. Never did I argue against using self-defense, but suddenly Loesch apparently thinks I am a complete pacifist (or something similar) who will not defend the rights of others. How ridiculous! If she is perhaps more innocently just indicating I did not say enough, well, there are editorial limits to what you can do with 800 words.

I disagree with the hyphenated way that Horn presents his religious discipline: Christian is Christian. There is no “libertarian Christian,” such division is expressly protested throughout the Gospel, especially in Paul’s address to the Ephesians which addresses division in the body of Christ. There is no need to self-segregate and doing so shows a lack of knowledge in the face of Christ who Himself and through his disciples preached unity.

We now arrive at what seems to be central point of the article. It relates to the title of the post as well, which is: “A Bad Way to Argue for Libertarian-Christianity.” Apparently, what seems to offend Loesch the most is that I would dare argue at all that Christianity and libertarianism are compatible. Doing so, she says, is hyphenating the faith. First off, this is a complete misreading of my article. Never did I say I was arguing for some “libertarian-form-of-Christianity.” Never have I done this on LibertarianChristians.com. On the contrary, any reader of this site can see through the long history of writing that I have always argued for being Christian first, such as this short blog post.

My goal is to get Christians to reconsider their political philosophy, because as far as I can see the modern American church (general sense) tends to elevate statism above principle. Learning better principles tends to lead Christians to embrace a more libertarian political philosophy; it’s a perfectly natural result. It is not, as C.S. Lewis warned us, injecting a “Christianity and…” problem into our theology, it is a consistent way of viewing natural law and behaving accordingly.

Statism is not only a miserable failure, but also fraught with moral hazard and prone to commit atrocities beyond imagination. Instead, let us heed the words of Frederic Bastiat: “And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.”

To conclude, I return to the beginning of Loesch’s article:

Can a Christian be a libertarian? A column with some questionable logic that prevents the piece from being truly thought-provoking. A few things: …

Does anyone else find it funny that the only complete sentence in the first paragraph is the title of my original article? More importantly, how is it that Loesch accuses my article of “questionable logic” when her own work is fraught with mischaracterizations, insults, and straw-man arguments? If this is representative of the quality of her BigJournalism site, then count me out.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

A Bad Way to Argue Against Being a Christian Libertarian

A quick excerpt:

“Through libertarianism, many Christians have found a way to move past their previous beliefs about politics and embrace a more consistent, more biblical political philosophy. The message of abolishing government power is powerful on its own. In Ron Paul, many Christian libertarians see a leader who points to principles that conservatives and liberals have long forgotten… Libertarianism is not going away, and it surely will take an increasingly prominent place in the political discussion of Christians for years to come.”

Many thanks to the Washington Post for this great opportunity.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

LCC is in the Washington Post

Jack Hunter reports in the Daily Caller that Rand Paul blocked an unanimous consent vote that could have had big effects:

Last week, while most senators were focused on the important national issues of war funding and Americans’ constitutional liberties, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) seemed more concerned with the fate of a foreign country. Behind the scenes, Rubio moved to have a unanimous consent vote that would have hastened Georgia’s entry into NATO. The unanimous consent vote never happened because Senator Rand Paul single-handedly prevented it.

This is not a triviality. Make no mistake: Bringing Georgia into NATO could lead to a new military conflict for the United States, which is why any move that would facilitate Georgia’s entry into the alliance should be publicly debated. Rubio’s attempt to push this through by unanimous consent — that is to say, without any formal debate or vote — is highly suspect and calls into question the senator’s better judgment.

You may remember that the small country of Georgia, which is on the border of Russia, nearly got the United States into a smoking conflict just three years ago. There is more information in the Daily Caller article and I recommend reading it. The American people are, for the most part, incredibly ignorant of foreign policy these days. I highly doubt that most could even find Georgia on a map, or even know that Georgia is a country at all. Nonetheless, this rogue government continues its imperialist ventures behind the people’s backs, ignoring the costs and building its hegemony day by day.

However, just reporting the facts in this blog post is only part of the point…

Rand Paul made a good move here, no doubt. But, we need to remember such events do not prove that politics is the be-all-and-end-all of the liberty movement as well. Rand, I am sure, knows that if the government wants a war, they can get one. The importance of Rand’s block is that it brings attention to the inner workings of the State. If the consent vote had gone through, hardly anyone would have noticed until another conflict was underway. Then, of course, boobus Americanus will fall in line, trusting that their deified overlords got it right just like they did Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and etc.

It is our job to expose the evils of the State, not “reform” them. Libertarian politicians like Rand and Ron Paul can only do so much to “fix” anything at all. Ultimately, the willingness of the people to turn a blind eye is what allows the State to thrive. We should take events like Rand’s vote as opportunities to talk to people, to teach them about liberty. Without changing the culture, any good a libertarian politician might accomplish has every possibility of being washed away the moment he leaves office.

I support Ron Paul, but it is up to us to carry things forward in the long run. I’m not Ron Paul, you are. Think about it.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Rand Paul may have prevented conflict with Russia, but what does it mean?

(HT Chris Bevis for the title of this post.)

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

“Is Saul also among the prophets?” or, the Rush Limbaugh flip-flop

You can see the full details of the plan here, or you can download a PDF. Here are some of the high notes:

Spending and Entitlement Programs

The Paul budget cuts $1 trillion in the first year of his presidency, including complete evaporation of the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Commerce, Interior, and Education. Finally, a Republican who actually wants to abolish the wretched DOEs (both of them)! Ending foreign wars provides most of the cuts in this category. Spending returns to 2006 levels within a year (not enough, in my opinion, but a good start).

The plan provides for preservation of existing Medicaid and other welfare programs for the time being, but more importantly allows people to opt out! Considering that I no ZERO people, libertarian or not, who expect to receive a cent back from what they pay into Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security this is a godsend.

Taxes

Paul’s plan lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, which is down from around 40%. The USA has one of the highest corporate tax rates out there and it is one of the many reasons for the declining industrial economy here. All of the Bush tax cuts remain (one of the few good things Bush ever did) and the Death Tax is abolished. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.

Regulation

ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley will be scrapped, thank goodness. Not really a surprise, of course, because these monstrous regulatory devices are easily some of the most destructive mandates in recent years.  The report also says, “President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.” Hopefully by “onerous” he means almost everything.

Monetary Policy

The Federal Reserve, of course, will get a full audit, exposing the government banksters’ fraud and deception forced upon the world. Gold may not be made official money yet, but this is the best start you can hope for.

Conclusion

All this being said, as an abolitionist I would be remiss to point out that this budget does not go far enough, for three reasons. First, why are certain departments, like defense, seeing nominal increases in spending after the major cuts year on year? If the plan is to drill down the size of government, I wouldn’t expect to see any department or program see increases over the years. And no, I don’t think that inflation-adjusted numbers should count. I don’t get a raise just because my money is worth less, and neither should the government.

Second, unless I missed it then why on earth is the income tax not eliminated on day one? Has that not been a pretty important point of Paul’s message from the beginning? Would somebody correct me please?

Third, why stop here with the cuts? There are plenty more departments to eliminate, bureaucratic orgs to eradicate, and government waste to incinerate. Never rest on your laurels, strike the root! Now, I grant that, while comprehensive, this plan is not written on stone tablets. Ron probably would love to do more, but in such a publication as this you must nail down the essentials rather than write every detail you can. So, kudos to the Paul campaign for putting forward a good plan.

Again, you can check out the full plan here.

I hear there is another major money bomb coming up, called Black This Out. If you support this plan, perhaps you should consider donating?

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America