Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that, all time and culture considerations aside, the political philosophy held by most of the Founding Fathers matched the basic ideals of the modern libertarian philosophy. The core belief of libertarianism, ignoring the distinctions of all the various permutations of it as well as the whole anarchist strand, is the philosophy of Paine that government is a necessary evil and must hence be limited to doing the things that make it a necessity at all: that is, government should only ever be about the business of protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. It is in essence passive, and must be restrained from intruding upon noninjurious liberty. The Bill of Rights is an heir to that concern.
Libertarians are on steadiest ground against government regulation of economics. They are generally firmly capitalistic, which is to say that they think government intrusion into economics always leads to decreased liberty and profitability for all parties. Most libertarians are equally insistent that the government not make any law abridging people’s freedom on social issues. This latter is a reason that I shy away from committing to the libertarian ideal. It’s not that I think the government has a vested (or Constitutional) interest in invading our personal lives or that it is particularly effective when it does so. These are my dilemmas.
Above, in passing, I allowed a distinction between the political philosophy of the Founders and modern libertarianism. This factor is the state of the society’s morality. The Founders would not have wished a government that intrudes on personal liberty; there is no doubt about that. However, neither would they have wished (or imagined) a society whose personal liberties looked so non-traditional and scandalous. On this point, I often quote John Adams:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Libertarians are generally in favor of the legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, and abortion - in short, all the social issues that left-wing philosophers champion and right-wing philosophers unequivocally condemn! But, following the Founders’ principle against the impingement on personal liberty (seen, for instance in the right to bear arms, free speech, and the practice of religion) and absent any explicit Constitutional prohibition of the moral vices I mentioned above, the modern libertarian view appears to be quite consistent with the Founders’ philosophy. “Times change,” libertarians say, “and the vices of the past are the personal prerogatives of the present.”
So what should we do? Should we just let it go? Should we “fight back”? What does that look like politically?
The government cannot dictate morality; it can only enforce punishment against behavior decided upon as unacceptable by those who constitute the government. The contention of the Founders and the libertarians is that the only behavior that should be sanctioned by government is behavior that violates the life, liberty, or property of others. Some conservative groups, seeking to compensate for the disparity of early and modern American moral standards, include behavior that violates specifically Christian morality in the list of legal prohibitions. This includes prostitution: how does this violate the rights of anyone? Someone sells a service to someone — sounds like a typical capitalistic win-win enterprise when Christian morality is removed from the equation. (The issue of abortion is completely different: even biologically, without reference to religious concerns, there is no excuse for the killing of the unborn.)
The problem is the question of whether we should pick and choose things that offend our (and God’s) morality to legislate and then prosecute violations of those mores. There is a segment of Christian society that thinks that might makes right, and any decisions we make, any liberty we prohibit, as long as it is done in God’s name, is obedience. I wonder if such people can cite a case in which a system like this was enforced and it turned out well; God’s own chosen people bucked against these sorts of restraints under the theocratic Torah-established government. It didn’t take long before they were ignoring whole swaths of the most central laws. This was because all the Law could do was bring consciousness of sin and bestow condemnation, and was powerless to evince the changes necessary to avoid breaking the laws: it could not create pure hearts.
What are the solutions? One the one hand, we could “update” the Founders’ philosophy and legislate matters of conscience with which non-Christians may be in disagreement and hope that doing so will…appease God? make them change their minds about the behavior? On the other hand, we could stop trying to keep people from making personal sins that affect only those who wish to be involved and lean more heavily on the Church to change the hearts of the population. Sounds like I’m advocating the latter, doesn’t it? Not necessarily; I realize that the issue is more complicated than that.
The problem is that some of those “personal sins” (homosexuality, prostitution, drug-use) pollute the culture such that it becomes unfit for our posterity’s consumption; I don’t want my children exposed to so much of that stuff before I have time to ground them in our faith’s morality. That’s a major reason why we’re homeschooling. But even that doesn’t much mitigate the frog-in-hot-water factor of Christians in a degenerating culture; and there is a distinct possibility that the water heats even more imperceptibly if the legalization of questionable behavior is confused with tacit approval. To this Christian libertarians might respond, “Well, even if so, Christians just need to raise their influence level a few notches so that we can take back the culture more quickly.” I don’t doubt that we can do that — but will I have to sacrifice the innocence and well-being of my children and grandchildren for it?
What’s the answer?
You tell me.
Email this post to a friend
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Loading ...
5 responses so far ↓
1 Josh H. // Oct 17, 2007 at 5:33 pm
This is the very reason I can not vote libertarian. I am so thankful for their constitutional stances but then bring up morality and it’s “anything goes”.
My take on it? I am a Christian first and foremost. The vices you mentioned are not of God therefore I could never vote for an ideology that supported or allowed them. Maybe I’m not a consistent constitutionalist but even though I disagree with government regulation of the internet, for example, I would gladly vote for a bill that outlawed internet pornography. That is a cancer that is eroding away people’s minds, character and marriages. It adds nothing good to society. It only harms. Illegal drugs fall into this category as well. And before any of you think it, I am not advocating the legislation of morality. I am advocating the stamping out of institutions, behaviors and vices that can cause a nation to rot from the inside.
For me, there is no dilemma. If it violates or contradicts the word of God, I will not support it. Call me a fundamentalist, but I must uphold the laws and statutes of God and resist any legislation or government that does not.
Am I an inconsistent conservative? Yep. Let’s face it: some things, whether they’re addressed in the constitution or not are just wrong.
2 Steve // Oct 17, 2007 at 6:55 pm
See, that’s the problem, though. There are people who talk as nobly as you do about voting only for things that don’t violate or contradict the Bible, but then turn around and vote for the lesser of two evils when it comes to candidates, but this ideology would rule this tactic out. When Christians only vote for candidates who support them on every Christian doctrine, as Dobson has recently suggested, they are in many cases virtually giving away the election to people who are militantly at odds with Christian morality, just so their consciences may be clear. Moreover, Christians cannot at the same time lay aside consistent constitutionalism by seeking the government to enforce Christian morality and then turn around and justify it by asserting that they are merely working out the Founders’ original intention that ours be a Christian nation. If we disregard what they fought for in these matters, we can’t base our political action on the notion that the Founders’ beliefs should form our framework.
I cannot believe that the act of voting is merely to appease my conscience: my voting must actually accomplish something. Sometimes what it is seeks to accomplish is part of another scheme and may not appear to directly impact the ultimate goal. Sometimes voting for the lesser of two evils, which sometimes includes supporting people who violate and contradict the Bible, is the only Christian choice. It’s part of being crafty as serpents. Christian libertarians are not searing their consciences by supporting a political platform that thinks it wrong-headed to use the force of government as an arm to eradicate ugly institutions, behaviors, and vices done in privacy and harming no innocent party. They point out the resentment that has been bred by the perception that Christians are trying to force their morality on others; in order for the gospel that truly changes the world to infiltrate everywhere, Christianity needs a major face-lift — people acting out in love, not coercion, and not even perceived coercion. They notice that the anti-Christian crusaders are locked in a nasty battle to gain and retain power so that their ideology can win the day; they fear that throwing out the Founders’ ideal of not adopting a particular religion’s morality will backfire the next time an anti-Christian comes in.
Christians react in horror when they hear stories of government imposing anti-Christian ideals onto its citizens, such as making preaching against homosexuality a hate crime, or having kids in public schools read Heather Has Two Mommies and the fairy tale of two princes in love. Yet what would Christians like Dobson do if they were in the majority in education? Darn tootin’, they would have all kids reading Bible stories in public school. Why should the secularists not do so if Christians would if they were in power? The end result is that whoever is in office will decide which morality is advocated by the government. Is this good? The anti-libertarian philosophy responds, “But the secularist view is not as valid as mine is — our view of morality has the authority of the Founders’ original intentions for America!” But here again, equally a part of the warp and woof of our Founders’ original intentions was the need for government to be limited to its core competencies, which did not include having the government be a moral watchdog. We need a government that will not interfere in matters of faith and practice, and will defend the right of each individual, even if it defends one’s right to do things abhorrent in God’s eyes. God obviously didn’t find it contradictory to Himself or the Bible to allow people to sin; why, then, should the Kingdom of God? The Church, as ever, is responsible for propagating Christian teachings, and the Holy Spirit working through us is the only morality police our country needs.
In short, if Christian involvement in politics is about saying, “I voted for only righteous things,” actual consequences to society notwithstanding, the Christian opponents to libertarian thought are dead on. If, however, we are supposed to care about whether our countrymen come to know Christ and are open to the possibility of using our votes as a tool to uphold ultimately Christian ends, the case isn’t as open-and-shut as it seems.
3 Steve // Oct 17, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Sheesh, that was long. I might as well have posted another blog.
Look, I have a devil’s advocate problem - I hope I didn’t sound too much like I’m advocating Christian libertarianism. I’m just explaining that it is not as cut and dry and it might look at first glance, and that Christian libertarians have good arguments, too.
4 Ed Burley // Oct 19, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Steve,
Hey, good stuff. Thought provoking. Let me address the “moral laws” that our brother Josh stumps for. So, this is directed towards Josh, and anyone else who is considering the implications.
The Religious Right argues that we need laws to repress sinful behavior. These include blasphemy, murder, idolatry, adultery, etc. Not all in the RR believe that all these things should be legislated against, and yet, by implication, that is exactly what they are advocating. How do you take one biblical case law (the prohibition against murder) and state that you will punish the evildoer; but then reject another, like adultery? Both crimes in the bible are punishable by death; as is homosexuality, beastiality, among others.
Herein is where the problem lies: the RR wants certain things prohibited, thus by argument; the good is encouraged. Now, we have the Evanglical Left coming on the scene demanding the same thing. They want to enforce compassion; since compassion is good. Charity is now a function of the government; just as enforcing morality.
As I stated on my website, the function of government is to protect its citizens from others (not themselves). Adults should be able to make decisions based on their personal views of whatever god they worship, or don’t. Presumably, they will answer for their behavior in the after-life, at least to some extent. As long as their behavior is not causing harm to others - e.g., murder - their behavior shouldn’t be prohibited.
Oh, and another point I don’t want anyone to miss. Abortion is murder, and should be proscribed by the state. The unborn are citizens, by implication, and deserve to have their property (body, mind, LIFE) protected. That is a legitimate function of government.
I have other thoughts concerning these “immoral activities” that our brother Josh doesn’t like. I won’t share them here in the interest of time. I encourage anyone reading this to visit my website, and discuss things there as well. I don’t mind tying up space there, but don’t feel right about using up Steve’s site for my own agenda.
Thanks again Steve for recommending I visit.
ed
5 AMW // Jun 9, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I’m way, way late to the party here, but I just came across this blog recently. A couple of thoughts:
I am so thankful for their constitutional stances but then bring up morality and it’s “anything goes”.
Most libertarians wouldn’t argue “anything goes” morally, they would argue that it is not legitimate to use force to prevent consenting individuals from engaging in activities that do not violate the life, liberty or property of a third party, whether or not those activities are moral or immoral.
Call me a fundamentalist, but I must uphold the laws and statutes of God and resist any legislation or government that does not.
Which laws and statutes? “Thou shalt have no other gods before me?” “You shall not thake the name of the Lord in vain?” “Honor your father and mother?” All but the most hard-core fundamentalist Christians accept that some of God’s laws and statutes are best left unenforced by the government.
And if you’re going to enforce God’s statutes, why center it around personal moral conduct, like viewing pornography? Why not center it around idolatry? Surely the Bible gives far more examples of a nation being corrupted and rotting from the inside from idolatry than from sexual misconduct?
If it violates or contradicts the word of God, I will not support it.
There is a difference between supporting something and protecting it from legal coercion. Atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, etc., etc., all contradict the word of God. I presume you are still in favor of the 1st Amendment.
Leave a Comment