Not all libertarians believe in self-ownership

Before discussing whether or not the libertarian concept of self-ownership is contrary to Christianity, it should be made clear that regardless of the answer, Christianity and libertarianism needn’t be in conflict.  If self-ownership and Christianity are in conflict (and I do not believe they are) this still would not mean a libertarianism based on something other than self-ownership is in conflict with Christianity.

It is true many libertarians believe in the principle of self-ownership and work from there to a philosophy of man and his relation to a state; but not all.  Libertarianism is a set of beliefs of about what role, if any, government should play in society.  A belief in self-ownership is not required to conclude that the state should be minimal or nonexistent.  One can advocate a libertarian society based on its ability to achieve any set of desired ends, like prosperity or happiness, regardless of whether or not self-ownership or any kind of rights exist.

Libertarian self-ownership does not contradict Christianity

What about the majority of libertarians who do believe self-ownership is the logical and ethical basis for their ideology; does this stand in contrast with Christian doctrine?  It does not.

It is true, Christians believe that man is not his own, but a creation and servant of God.  In this sense, he does not ‘own’ himself any more than he can own a galaxy.  However, this is not the sense in which libertarians speak of self-ownership.  Libertarianism is only a political philosophy.  It only concerns the proper relationship of man to man in regards to force.  It does not concern authority or submission in general, so long as they are voluntary.  It has nothing to say, for example, about how wives and husbands ought to submit to and serve one another in a voluntary relationship.  Nor does it concern man’s cosmic place in the universe and whether or not he must be obedient to supernatural powers.

Most trouble with libertarianism comes when we ask it to be more than a political philosophy.  In this case, forgetting that self-ownership is merely about the proper relationship of man to man can cause us to assume it defies the authority of God.  Many libertarians wrap these ideas together, but libertarianism itself is mute on questions of theology.

Libertarian assertions are few; man ought not to use violence against man if at all possible.  The typical exceptions are self-defense, or for tax collection for very limited cases of “public goods” (the latter of these exceptions falls apart under any serious scrutiny).  Those who base these assertions on the principle of self-ownership are merely saying, “Do not coerce another because you do not own another”.

There is nothing in that doctrine which is inimical to Christianity.  The idea that you do not own any other person is not only inoffensive and perfectly permissible to a Christian, but the proper mindset to have in relation to your fellow man.  We are not to coerce.  We are to love and to serve.  And if we are coerced by another, we may be obligated by our conscience to submit at times, and may at other times be permitted to resist.

On earthly authority

A common Christian objection is that God has established authorities on earth that we are to submit to, and the idea of self-ownership flies in the face of these God-ordained authority structures.  I am willing to accept that men are unequal and uniquely stationed in life; some to lead and have authority.  It is also plain that at times we are called to submit to others.  These facts do not pose any problems to the libertarian idea of self-ownership.

First, though God may call some to lead and some to follow, who is able to discern the particulars?  To accept that God may ordain authority on earth is one thing; to discover where that authority is is another.  Are we to obey any person who claims to have authority?  Our Christian duty is to seek God’s will and obey it, but only the individual can decide for himself when he is right in relation to God’s will.  In other words, only the individual can own the decision of whether and when to submit to another.

Second, the mere use of the word ‘submit’ is an affirmation of the idea of self-ownership.  Submission is a conscious choice.  “Be coerced by the governing authorities” certainly has a different meaning than “submit”.  The advice in scripture is to engage in an act of self-sacrifice when we are so called.  A person can only sacrifice something they own.

On owning property

Some Christians have a similar objection to the idea of property ownership, which is the logical offspring of self-ownership.  If God created the world, who are we to claim we can own it?  Aren’t we merely stewards at best?  Indeed, if we cannot claim to own another human created by God, how can we claim to own any animal, vegetable or mineral created by God?

This matter is rather easily resolved; it doesn’t matter.

That is, it doesn’t matter if you ‘own’ or are a ‘steward’ of property.  That may be an interesting question metaphysically, but it doesn’t change the ethics of the institution of private property.  If a person is willing to admit that any use or consumption of physical matter whatsoever is permitted on earth (and if they are not, it means they believe the only moral life is death and that breathing oxygen itself is a sin), they must answer the question of how finite resources can justly be used by people with competing demands.

Private property has emerged universally as the best means of settling this problem throughout history, and there is nothing anti-Christian about this.  Though God owns all matter in the cosmic sense, the institution of private property is a moral and practical means for settling disputes about its earthly use by humans.  Christians ought to applaud and defend this institution because there is no other logically possible means of coordinating the competing demands for scarce resources, and every attempt at creating one has resulted in severe poverty and violence.  Private property is as natural as breathing.

In summary

Because God owns us it does not follow that any other human owns us.  Indeed, recognizing God’s ownership and lordship makes the idea of a human owner ridiculous.  We may voluntarily submit to others, but in the act of submitting we are showing who the real owner is; one can only submit oneself if one owns oneself.

And that’s where the really powerful stuff is revealed:  Even He who does, in material fact, own us chooses not to coerce us.  The only One with a legitimate claim on us chooses not to enforce it but by persuasion.  If the God of the universe rejects coercion in his efforts to bring a soul to Truth, what possible justification could we have for coercing each other in our efforts to establish useful social institutions on earth?

Libertarian self-ownership recognizes our free-will, our place in relation to our creator that no human could fill, and it also serves as a valuable foundation for social mores and institutions.  It poses no threat to Christianity and creates no conflict with it.  I cannot love my neighbor by owning him and I cannot submit to another unless I own myself.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Christianity and Self-Ownership

Isn’t that fantastic? Share it with your friends, maybe you’ll be able to teach them about liberty soon…

By the way, the Executive Director is Jason Rink, author of Disciple of Liberty. He is a great friend of mine now and I am trying really hard to get him to start writing for LCC. Maybe some comments here would convince him?

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Who Owns You? I sure don’t…

The government and special interest groups working through the government claim they are “here to help” you. But no matter how good their intentions, usually they end up violating your rights. For instance, most people would agree that substance abuse is bad, whether that substance is heroin or over the counter sleeping pills. Most people would also agree that the doctor, the lawyer, the nutritionist, the hairdresser and the contractor you do business with should know what they are doing. Yet, the essence of natural rights is that self-ownership and freedom of association are not contingent upon man-made legislation but are inherent in each individual. The real question then, is not whether substance abuse is bad, or whether it is good for a person to have the proper training in their chosen profession, but if anyone should be able to tell you what you can or cannot consume, inhale, drink, inject into yourself, or with whom you can contract. The answer is NO — you are the only one who has the right to make this decision. Any coercion exerted by the government violates your individual rights, grossly misallocates economic resources, and distorts the market. It’s a simple yet powerful concept: you own yourself.

Restrictions or bans on substances violate property rights. In many countries, governments (or as some have called them, “food Nazis”) have taken to banning all sorts of items, such as trans-fats, foie gras, and the smoking of cigarettes — a clear violation of property rights. If a restaurant owner believed her patrons would prefer foods without trans-fats, she would be smart to prepare foods without those fats. A bar owner who sees that many customers would rather have an adult beverage without smelling of smoke would ask his patrons not to light up. But, even if the property owner made a decision that others disagree with, or one that goes against market trends, that is his prerogative. Consumers are always free to spend their dollars elsewhere.

Restrictions or bans on substances are inefficient and impossible to enforce. The war on (some) drugs is a war that cannot be won. After a group of people (i.e. the Drug Enforcement Administration, legislators trying to appear “tough on crime,” etc.) deem a particular substance “illicit,” money is taken from productive members of society to fund what is now a $40 billion per year anti-drug campaign. With 25% of those in state prisons and 55% of those in federal prison incarcerated for a drug-related offense, this failed government policy means the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world and the largest number of individuals behind bars in absolute numbers. Not exactly the “land of the free.” Further, making substances illegal does not lessen demand for them but only moves them to the black market where purity is questionable, where contractual disputes are resolved through violence rather than in court, and where the price is artificially high. This allows organized crime to thrive and pushes desperate users into crime to pay for their addiction.

Occupational licensing violates your right to voluntarily make contacts. It is no secret that those who oversee licensing requirements have an incentive to limit their competition. By buddying up with legislators to create and score the tests required for a license to “legally” work in their profession, plumbers, hairstylists, contractors, doctors and others claim to act to “protect” the public from shoddy workmanship or services. This serves only to protect them from competition, which drives up prices for the consumer. By denying consumers the right to hire who they want for a particular job it violates their right to voluntarily reach a contact with another person. And it violates the rights of an individual to choose their profession. If the free market forces of competition were allowed into these professions, it would drive down cost and raise quality because those who do a bad job or defraud people will be exposed for doing so, and cannot hide behind a government-issued license.

The regulation of pharmaceuticals violates individual rights and distorts the market. The Food and Drug Administration, another agency created under the auspices of “protecting us,” is responsible for countless deaths due to the barriers (in terms of time and money) it puts between a drug and the market. In a true free market, consumers would have the right to buy and consume drugs at their discretion. For determining the safety and efficacy of a drug, they will likely turn to their doctors, Consumer Reports-type associations that rank drugs, and other reviews for advice. And if a drug fails to deliver on its promises it will gain a negative reputation and will be avoided, possibly causing the manufacturer to go under. This is your life, not some bureaucrat’s.

Previous | All Memes

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Who Owns You?