Is theological libertarianism compatible with Christianity?

[ALAYMAN]

The recent thread on pot usage (on Ohio ballots today) points to a shift in American evangelical views.  I think much of the shift that has occurred is due to libertarian philosophy, not all of which is good.  With that in mind I figured this might provide opportunity to discuss why we believe what we believe about the nature of the will of man (as it relates to the notion of liberty/freedom and depravity).  So.....

give pros and cons of how you think libertarian philosophy may appropriately shape Christian belief/ethics.

 

[subllibrm]

Man is going to do what man is going to do. May as well tax him on it.  ;D

 

[Billy]

Is any political belief system compatible with Christianity?

Bill

 

[Izdaari]

The recent thread on pot usage (on Ohio ballots today) points to a shift in American evangelical views.  I think much of the shift that has occurred is due to libertarian philosophy, not all of which is good.  With that in mind I figured this might provide opportunity to discuss why we believe what we believe about the nature of the will of man (as it relates to the notion of liberty/freedom and depravity).  So.....

give pros and cons of how you think libertarian philosophy may appropriately shape Christian belief/ethics.

A libertarian political view has nothing to do with theological libertarianism, or one's view of man's free will. I know quite a few Christian political libertarians who are Calvinists. 

I believe the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is a good political guideline. But how much free will humans have is a philosophical or theological question, not directly related to the political question.

 

[ALAYMAN]

theological libertarianism?.......... no.......... but political libertarianism.... yes........with a few limitations..... ... and i believe the primary focus of those limitations should be whether or not to impose restrictions on personal liberties that pose a physical threat to others......... note i said "physical" threat..... not an ideological threat .......  and certainly not mere ideological distress.....(such as the proponents of political correctness claim)

Just an introductory objection, because I essentially agree with your analysis of maryjane, you said limitations based on whether harm to others, but what about self?  Theologically speaking, I think it is clear you would agree that to harm one's self also violates the will of God.  Many of the crimes of personal consent do harm to self (drug use, euthanasia, adultery, etc).  How do you coalesce this incompatibility?

 

[Izdaari]

theological libertarianism?.......... no.......... but political libertarianism.... yes........with a few limitations..... ... and i believe the primary focus of those limitations should be whether or not to impose restrictions on personal liberties that pose a physical threat to others......... note i said "physical" threat..... not an ideological threat .......  and certainly not mere ideological distress.....(such as the proponents of political correctness claim)


Just an introductory objection, because I essentially agree with your analysis of maryjane, you said limitations based on whether harm to others, but what about self?  Theologically speaking, I think it is clear you would agree that to harm one's self also violates the will of God.  Many of the crimes of personal consent do harm to self (drug use, euthanasia, adultery, etc).  How do you coalesce this incompatibility?

I'll stipulate that harm to oneself is a sin, since it isn't what God wants for us. But that's between us and God, not a matter for government law. That's a political libertarian view, not a theological one.

 

[ALAYMAN]

theological libertarianism?.......... no.......... but political libertarianism.... yes........with a few limitations..... ... and i believe the primary focus of those limitations should be whether or not to impose restrictions on personal liberties that pose a physical threat to others......... note i said "physical" threat..... not an ideological threat .......  and certainly not mere ideological distress.....(such as the proponents of political correctness claim)


Just an introductory objection, because I essentially agree with your analysis of maryjane, you said limitations based on whether harm to others, but what about self?  Theologically speaking, I think it is clear you would agree that to harm one's self also violates the will of God.  Many of the crimes of personal consent do harm to self (drug use, euthanasia, adultery, etc).  How do you coalesce this incompatibility?

I'll stipulate that harm to oneself is a sin, since it isn't what God wants for us. But that's between us and a God, not a matter for government law. That's a political libertarian view, not a theological one.

Okay, but speaking experientially,  what if the abolitionists had felt the same laissez-faire attitude towards slavery?

 

[Liberty1]

Man is going to do what man is going to do. May as well tax him on it.  ;D

Political Libertarianism is amoral. Whatever the states want they should have. Morals are jettisoned for almost any form of liberty. As far as I'm concerned, Political Libertarianism is the opposite of Christianity. I have more respect for a Liberal than I do a Libertarian. At least the liberal is openly supporting immorality - while the libertarian claims to believe in right and wrong but surrenders those beliefs to state rights. Marijuana is just one example of this.

Theological Libertarianism ? I'm not sure what  that means or how it differs from political libertarianism.  My guess is that morals that can be surrendered in the face of political pressure must have a weak theological base.

 

[Izdaari]

ALAYMAN, that doesn't work for slavery. While keeping slaves may harm oneself spiritually, the reason for making it illegal is that it harms others, violating the Non-Aggression Principle. Libertarians couldn't be ok with that.

 

[Izdaari]

Man is going to do what man is going to do. May as well tax him on it.  ;D

Political Libertarianism is amoral. Whatever the states want they should have. Morals are jettisoned for almost any form of liberty. As far as I'm concerned, Political Libertarianism is the opposite of Christianity. I have more respect for a Liberal than I do a Libertarian. At least the liberal is openly supporting immorality - while the libertarian claims to believe in right and wrong but surrenders those beliefs to state rights. Marijuana is just one example of this.

Theological Libertarianism ? I'm not sure what  that means or how it differs from political libertarianism.  My guess is that morals that can be surrendered in the face of political pressure must have a weak theological base.

Not quite. I believe in right and wrong, but I don't believe in using government law to make people do right, when when what they're doing wrong doesn't harm others. Particularly since using government law anymore than necessary causes harm to others. Government law is not morally neutral, but is the tool that those who survive by plunder use to enrich themselves.

 

[Liberty1]

Man is going to do what man is going to do. May as well tax him on it.  ;D

Political Libertarianism is amoral. Whatever the states want they should have. Morals are jettisoned for almost any form of liberty. As far as I'm concerned, Political Libertarianism is the opposite of Christianity. I have more respect for a Liberal than I do a Libertarian. At least the liberal is openly supporting immorality - while the libertarian claims to believe in right and wrong but surrenders those beliefs to state rights. Marijuana is just one example of this.

Theological Libertarianism ? I'm not sure what  that means or how it differs from political libertarianism.  My guess is that morals that can be surrendered in the face of political pressure must have a weak theological base.

Not quite. I believe in right and wrong, but I don't believe in using government law to make people do right, when when what they're doing wrong doesn't harm others. Particularly since using government law anymore than necessary causes harm to others. Government law is not morally neutral, but is the tool that those who survive by plunder use to enrich themselves.

The political libertarians that have infested the Republican Party have a common thread that is heard over and over again: "I'm PERSONALLY opposed to _______________________________(fill in the blank) but if the states want it, then I will vote for it. " The blank could be anything from marijuana to abortion to homosexual marriage.

This is not a Christian or  Biblical position. It is contrary to Christian doctrine to place human liberty above  biblical ethics. To put it another way - we do not have the "right" to do that in a theological sense.

Marijuana, abortion, and homosexual marriage are moral issues that Christians must take  biblical positions on. Libertarianism asks that people not stand for their Christian beliefs, politically,  in the face of a  majority vote that goes the other way.

The Bible places much emphasis on human liberty, but not at the cost of Biblical ethics.

 

[Izdaari]

Man is going to do what man is going to do. May as well tax him on it.  ;D

Political Libertarianism is amoral. Whatever the states want they should have. Morals are jettisoned for almost any form of liberty. As far as I'm concerned, Political Libertarianism is the opposite of Christianity. I have more respect for a Liberal than I do a Libertarian. At least the liberal is openly supporting immorality - while the libertarian claims to believe in right and wrong but surrenders those beliefs to state rights. Marijuana is just one example of this.

Theological Libertarianism ? I'm not sure what  that means or how it differs from political libertarianism.  My guess is that morals that can be surrendered in the face of political pressure must have a weak theological base.

Not quite. I believe in right and wrong, but I don't believe in using government law to make people do right, when when what they're doing wrong doesn't harm others. Particularly since using government law anymore than necessary causes harm to others. Government law is not morally neutral, but is the tool that those who survive by plunder use to enrich themselves.

The political libertarians that have infested the Republican Party have a common thread that is heard over and over again: "I'm PERSONALLY opposed to _______________________________(fill in the blank) but if the states want it, then I will vote for it. " The blank could be anything from marijuana to abortion to homosexual marriage.

This is not a Christian or  Biblical position. It is contrary to Christian doctrine to place human liberty above  biblical ethics. To put it another way - we do not have the "right" to do that in a theological sense.

Marijuana, abortion, and homosexual marriage are moral issues that Christians must take  biblical positions on. Libertarianism asks that people not stand for their Christian beliefs, politically,  in the face of a  majority vote that goes the other way.

The Bible places much emphasis on human liberty, but not at the cost of Biblical ethics.

Neither the Bible nor the Constitution gives government the authority to enforce religious law.  Churches might, but only on their members... and most Americans are not members of a church.

 

[rsc2a]

...This is not a Christian or  Biblical position. It is contrary to Christian doctrine to place human liberty above  biblical ethics. To put it another way - we do not have the "right" to do that in a theological sense.

...

The Bible places much emphasis on human liberty, but not at the cost of Biblical ethics.

It is contrary to Christian principles to contrast liberty and ethics.

Christian principle: In Christ, we are free and that freedom is expressed as we do good.

Corollary- When one does that which they ought not, they have enslaved themselves.

 

[Fresh Air]

Not quite. I believe in right and wrong, but I don't believe in using government law to make people do right, when when what they're doing wrong doesn't harm others. Particularly since using government law anymore than necessary causes harm to others.

I largely agree with you. In fact, I think theological libertarianism has an old and reputable history. Individual soul liberty is a highly important doctrine/practice.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Not quite. I believe in right and wrong, but I don't believe in using government law to make people do right, when when what they're doing wrong doesn't harm others. Particularly since using government law anymore than necessary causes harm to others.

I largely agree with you. In fact, I think theological libertarianism has an old and reputable history. Individual soul liberty is a highly important doctrine/practice.

But political libertarianism is rooted in philosophies that have no grounds in absolute moral authority, so it is bound to have ideology(s) that run counter to Biblical Christianity (as Liberty1 alluded to).  Nobody here wants a theocracy, but our laws are clearly grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics.  The question in most people's mind, as it relates to the political libertarian influence, is what degree of involvement in morality should the government have (especially where the libertarian definition of "harm" is employed).

 

[ALAYMAN]

Neither the Bible nor the Constitution gives government the authority to enforce religious law.  Churches might, but only on their members... and most Americans are not members of a church.

Is "thou shalt not murder" a religious law which our government enforces?  The "pursuit of life, liberty, ...." is encoded in the constitution, and its basis is undoubtedly religious.  Why do libertarians (in general) bulk at the intrusion of religion into the making of laws when it is clear that their foundation is steeped in religious history?

 

[Izdaari]

Not quite. I believe in right and wrong, but I don't believe in using government law to make people do right, when when what they're doing wrong doesn't harm others. Particularly since using government law anymore than necessary causes harm to others.

I largely agree with you. In fact, I think theological libertarianism has an old and reputable history. Individual soul liberty is a highly important doctrine/practice.

But political libertarianism is rooted in philosophies that have no grounds in absolute moral authority, so it is bound to have ideology(s) that run counter to Biblical Christianity (as Liberty1 alluded to).  Nobody here wants a theocracy, but our laws are clearly grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics.  The question in most people's mind, as it relates to the political libertarian influence, is what degree of involvement in morality should the government have (especially where the libertarian definition of "harm" is employed).

It does? I don't owe much of my political philosophy to Ayn Rand. I began in politics as a Buckley/Goldwater kind of libertarian leaning conservative, and read every issue of National Review. As Buckley and other NR luminaries introduced me to the great classical liberal thinkers, I read them. Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Tocqueville, J.S. Mill, Burke, et al. And the great free market economists, Friedman, Mises, Hayek, etc. Those are the influences that changed me from conservative to libertarian. And yeah, I read Rand of course. Rand was anti-Cfhristian to be sure, but she was the only one... and she did believe in absolute morality, though she based it on rational self-interest. I liked her politics and her novels, didn't much care for her philosophy. I count Lao-tsu, arguably the first libertarian in history, as an influence, but he was pre-Christian, around 400 B.C. in China, and his stuff implies Natural Law, a precursor to Aquinas, Locke and Jefferson in that respect.

So, I'm sorry, but I totally disagree that political libertarianism is based on anti-Christian thinking, or is incompatible with Christian thinking. Many libertarians are Christians, including me, and many, including me, are believers in Natural Law, though I only take it as far as Jefferson did, and don't buy anything like Christian Reconstructionism.

 

[Izdaari]

Neither the Bible nor the Constitution gives government the authority to enforce religious law.  Churches might, but only on their members... and most Americans are not members of a church.

Is "thou shalt not murder" a religious law which our government enforces?  The "pursuit of life, liberty, ...." is encoded in the constitution, and its basis is undoubtedly religious.  Why do libertarians (in general) bulk at the intrusion of religion into the making of laws when it is clear that their foundation is steeped in religious history?

But the reason why libertarians universally believe murder should be illegal is not that it violates religious law, but that it violates the Non-Aggression Principle. Coercively depriving another of their life, unprovoked, is as anti-libertarian as one can get. I was just about to quote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" back at you, though it comes from the Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson, an advocate of the same form of Natural Law that I believe in. It has religious roots, yes, but as I mentioned previously, they go back as far as the Tao Te Ching in 400 BC.

 

[Izdaari]

[youtube]qKieBjhhd7w&feature[/youtube]

 

[Bo]

Man is going to do what man is going to do. May as well tax him on it.  ;D

Political Libertarianism is amoral. Whatever the states want they should have. Morals are jettisoned for almost any form of liberty. As far as I'm concerned, Political Libertarianism is the opposite of Christianity. I have more respect for a Liberal than I do a Libertarian. At least the liberal is openly supporting immorality - while the libertarian claims to believe in right and wrong but surrenders those beliefs to state rights. Marijuana is just one example of this.

Theological Libertarianism ? I'm not sure what  that means or how it differs from political libertarianism.  My guess is that morals that can be surrendered in the face of political pressure must have a weak theological base.

Not quite. I believe in right and wrong, but I don't believe in using government law to make people do right, when when what they're doing wrong doesn't harm others. Particularly since using government law anymore than necessary causes harm to others. Government law is not morally neutral, but is the tool that those who survive by plunder use to enrich themselves.

The political libertarians that have infested the Republican Party have a common thread that is heard over and over again: "I'm PERSONALLY opposed to _______________________________(fill in the blank) but if the states want it, then I will vote for it. " The blank could be anything from marijuana to abortion to homosexual marriage.

This is not a Christian or  Biblical position. It is contrary to Christian doctrine to place human liberty above  biblical ethics. To put it another way - we do not have the "right" to do that in a theological sense.

Marijuana, abortion, and homosexual marriage are moral issues that Christians must take  biblical positions on. Libertarianism asks that people not stand for their Christian beliefs, politically,  in the face of a  majority vote that goes the other way.

The Bible places much emphasis on human liberty, but not at the cost of Biblical ethics.

I totally agree.......

political correctness never trumps Gods word......

Gods word is authority....the supreme authority....

saying that its ok to put Gods word and biblical ethics aside in the name of political correctness would almost seem be like putting political figures and law makers above God...

sounds mighty close to idolatry IMHO