Libertarianism From A Christian Perspective: Guest Post

Trevor Cartwright

“Who are you to tell me what to do?”

“Why can’t I do something if it doesn’t hurt anybody else?”

“Big government is a big failure; keep its nose out of my business!”

Such sentiments echo at Libertarian rallies across the world.  Libertarians value autonomy and freedom, and they are not afraid to openly express their disdain for the viewpoints of the opposition.  As Christians, however, it is prudent to evaluate such claims in the light of scripture.  It is wise to determine what Libertarianism is and if such a political view is congruent with Christian beliefs.

Libertarianism’s starting point is, as the name ostensibly indicates, liberty.  Libertarians consider liberty to be one of humanity’s greatest ideals; it is the epitome of social interaction (within limits of course).  Libertarians believe that people should be free to do what they want, so long as they do not infringe upon other people’s rights.  As Walter Block states it, “The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism.  It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.”[1]  We must then ask, does this concur with Christian moral philosophy?

The Bible certainly makes statements concerning morality, but to whom are such claims addressed?  Moral claims are always directed towards believers.  When Jesus commands His followers to love God and each other in Matthew 26:36-37, is He addressing the government?  No, He is instructing those who will choose to follow Him.  The epistles contain moral commands that are directed to believers (e.g. Rom. 1: 18-32, 1 Tim. 1:8-11, Gal. 5:19-21, etc.) but there are no commands directed towards the government.

Some may retort that the Old Testament contains commands towards civil government.  Libertarians, however, would rebut that such claims were directed towards a particular government at a particular time.  The Federal Republic system of the United States is certainly neither a theocracy nor a monarchy.  A confusion here would be like entering Macintosh commands into the Windows operating system; it is not going to work.

Based off of these premises, it follows that Libertarianism is congruent with Christianity because it does not dictate what one should and should not do; it simply provides the freedom for individuals to choose what they want to do.  One should feel comfortable with such a view because he can rest assured that his beliefs are safe from political takeover so long as his belief system does not include doing harmful acts towards others or their property.

For the sake of argument, what would happen if the United States began to infuse Christian moral commands into the laws?  Well, so long as there is a Christian majority in the three branches, it would be wonderful for Christians who support such a notion.  However what happens if Muslims or Atheists become the majority?  What happens if Atheists decided that Christianity is intolerant and needs to be outlawed?  What happens if Muslims decided that Sharia law needs to be implemented?  Christians would be outraged, right?  However, they would have no one to blame except themselves because they gave government “the power to define and legislate morality.”[2]  As Thomas Jefferson, a famous Libertarian, once said, “A government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take it all away.”

It is vitally important to reiterate that the beauty of Libertarianism is that is provides the freedom for individuals to do what they want.  It is a political philosophy that grants one the freedom to pursue happiness; it is not a personal moral philosophy that one adopts in order to indulge in licentiousness and immorality.  I hope that this blog entry has shed some light on Libertarianism for you.  We libertarians are not a mob of rebels who just want to smoke pot all day (as we are often accused of being); we are merely individuals who value life, liberty and justice for all.

Trevor Cartwright is currently a Middle School teacher at Lake Mead Christian Academy in Henderson, NV where he teaches World and American history. Trevor received a B.S. in Biblical Studies/ Philosophy with a minor in History from Evangel University. He is currently in the process of becoming a licensed minister with the Assemblies of God. He has been a youth pastor at an Assemblies of God church for almost a year before becoming a teacher, and he has been married to his beautiful wife Rachel for over two years. Trevor’s primary academic interests: theology, philosophy, world and U.S. history, political science, economics, natural medicine, biology, electrical engineering, and music. He also enjoys reading: Ron Paul, Wayne Root, Mark Levin, Thomas Jefferson, John Wesley, Fareed Zakaria, F. A. Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, and scientific literature. Some hobbies of Trevor’s are listening to rock and heavy metal music, playing and writing music, philosophizing with others, drinking and brewing coffee, and watching anime and documentaries with his wife, friends, and cats.
Trevor can be reached at tcartwright@lmca.org.

[1] “The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism,” last modified February 17, 2003, http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

[2] Root, The Conscience of a Libertarian, Pg. 77

Trevor Cartwright
Trevor is a guest contributor to The Two Cities.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You might also enjoy…

16 responses to “Libertarianism From A Christian Perspective: Guest Post”

  1. John Anthony Dunne
    John Anthony Dunne

    Thanks Trev! This is helpful. How would you distinguish between Libertarianism and Anarchy? I’ve heard people make the comparison before and I’d like to hear your thoughts on why the comparison is faulty. Thanks again!

    Reply
    1. Trevor Cartwright

      John,
      Your question is a common one. I should have differentiated between the two in my post. Libertarianism is an umbrella terms that covers different groups of people who disagree as to how much government should exist. Some Libertarians refer to themselves as “Anarchists,” and they believe that there should be no government…period. There are other groups of Libertarians who emphasize certain liberties and could actually care less about others. For example: some gays are hardcore Libertarians because they want to keep the government out of their bedrooms. They tend to dislike Statist mechanisms like central banks, but they do not tend to care as much about economic liberties. My blog discussed the beliefs of the bulk of U.S. Libertarians. One could call this view “Classical Liberalism.” Modern U.S. Libertarians tend to hold to the views of the late Thomas Jefferson and the Republican candidate Ron Paul. Both of these men have stated that they despise central banks and a large central government. (In fact, it is widely believed that Jefferson was an anti-Federalist who did not even want a central government; he simply wanted the states to rule themselves with no competing power.) Thus, it is faulty to call all Libertarians “anarchists” because that is one minority group under the Libertarian umbrella. That would be like calling all Democrats Communists because that is only one small group of Democrats.

      Reply
  2. Carrie Allen

    Libertarianism might have been a great idea back when Jefferson was alive, but how do you see it working today in America when there are so many people living here? Lets look at social services for example – how would a libertarian set up any services for the poor, widowed, or homeless? Can you give me some examples of how this would play out within a Libertarian environment and if you think that it would look biblical when all is said and done? Also, how do libertarians view the separation of church and state?

    Thanks!
    Carrie

    Reply
    1. Trevor Cartwright

      Carrie,
      Thanks for the question. In our modern age, we have developed a system- indeed, one might venture and call it an infrastructure- that systematically assists the poor. In fact, we have been raised to believe that such Statist mechanisms are necessary in a post-industrial society; without them, the poor would be dying in the streets. I would argue that it is not really an infrastructure; we can actually do much better without government aid programs. One important note here, Libertarianism is a very broad philosophy with people who disagree on the extent of government. My post was written from the standpoint of most American Libertarians; they consider themselves to be “Jeffersonians” and they would tend to vote for candidates like Ron Paul and Bob Barr. This view could be called “Classical Liberalism.” Libertarians of this persuasion are sort of a hybrid of Libertarianism and Constitutionalism. That is, they believe in a strict Constructional interpretation of the Constitution; they believe that the Constitution should be considered a list of rules, not guidelines. The powers of the federal government are limited to the list of federal powers listed in the Constitution. That is why Jefferson fought with Hamilton over the creation of the first National Bank of the United States- because banking was not a power given to the federal government. Based on this premise, it follows that Statist mechanisms like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare are unconstitutional because they violate the liberty of tax payers who should only have to pay federal taxes to support the exhaustive list of federal powers as mentioned in the Constitution in article one, section eight. Libertarians believe that it is the moral duty of the citizens of a state to meet the needs of their needy fellow citizens via means like churches and private charities. Libertarians further argue that the U.S. indeed met the needs of the poor very efficiently before the implementation of The Social Security Act of 1935 and the implementation of the Social Security act of 1965 which amended the original social security act to include Statist programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Libertarians often receive undue criticism because of their unswerving devotion to the Constitution; some argue that they neglect the needs of the poor because of the outdated notions of the Constitution. I would argue that Libertarians absolutely do care about the needs of the poor, they simply believe that the people are far better at taking care of each other than a government bureaucracy that cannot truly understand the needs of the poor. Thus, Libertarians do not believe that the Federal government has a role in assisting the poor. The states, however, can choose to do if they so desire because, as Madison wrote in Federalist 45, the powers of the states are unlimited and undefined whereas the powers of the Federal government are few and defined. As for this being Biblical, it absolutely is. Jesus never told us how the government should run; He told us (His followers) how we ought to live. Thus, as Christians, we need to take care of the poor via our churches and private charities. As it is written in the book of James, “That is true religion.”

      Reply
      1. Carrie Allen

        HI Trevor,

        Thanks for the response and clarifications – they helped me to understand better where you are coming from (though I don’t want to wrongly assume you are a Libertarian.. are you?).

        The more that I have been thinking of it, the more I am starting to wonder if Libertarianism is just this fantasy political party that has never, and will never work for America. I will expand on this more most likely in an upcoming blog post (if I ever get the time…), so I will keep this brief because I think we may need to agree to disagree all together here.

        Two things I do want to address though are the following:

        One, the total social welfare expenditure for the US is around 31% in our GDP and I can’t imagine just wiping this out. When it comes down to it, the majority of Americans have benefitted from the governments help in this area. Ways that I have benefitted – I didn’t have to take care of my grandparents when they were old because they had social security and medicare (how would I afford that?), when my dad lost his job for a bit he was able to receive unemployment, when I wanted to go to school and I received government grants (not to mention ALL of my public education from K-12th grade was FREE), my cousin with a disability received help so not to let the burden completely on my uncle, and finally I know you will hate this one, but the EITC has been kind to me over the years. Honestly, I just don’t know how America can run on Paul’s policies of no social welfare and no public education. $5,000 for our children’s education? Seriously? How will the American church be able to support people in need if Americans can hardly tithe because they have to pay for every single thing – they will be just trying to survive. Everyone will need help from the church.

        Two, calling Libertarianism Biblical because God commanded to set up our own governments… hmmm, I will have to think on that. I wonder if we can truly call any government system Biblical? I would be hesitant to do so… I want to stick to the Kingdom of God being biblical… Maybe we can take key commands and want to see them used within the government and call them Biblical?

        Anyway, thanks for making me think!

        Carrie

        Reply
  3. Trevor Cartwright

    Carrie, thanks for the reply. First of all, yes I am a Libertarian. Second, I must point out that you are correct about Social Security accounting for 31% of our budget- and that is a problem. Before we venture on any rabbit trails though, we need to reiterate this point- Is it constitutional? Does the constitution contain provisions for the Federal government to run these (or any) massive entitlement programs. The answer is a definite no, and the 10th amendment states that “any power not enumerated to the Federal government is reserved for the people and the states respectively.” Additionally, Federalist #45 states that the powers of the Federal government our “few and defined.” Social Security was never a defined power in section 8 of article 1. Hence, it is unconstitutional and must be revoked. If states want to run their own social security programs though, they are allowed to (I would grudgingly support their acceptance, but I would disagree on a philosophical level). To return to your point of contention, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collectively account for more than half of our budget. None of these programs are constitutional, and they are literally sucking the life out of our economy. Once an entitlement program is implemented, it simply continues to take more money in. The government does not vote on giving more money these programs; they simply give more money when it is needed. You question the practicality of stopping social security, well here is an idea: allow young people to opt out and divert federal spending from other things like our superfluous military global empire or the Department of Education and compensate any lost revenue so that we can be sure that all people who have paid into the system receive their earnings. This could be step one in a “phase out” plan. Subsequent steps could involve anything from privatizing it -that is what FDR wanted to happen by the 1960’s by the way- to simply ending it in the distant future The fact that we have no choice but to participate in the program is a disturbing though to a Libertarian. Anyways that is a Ron Paul plan. Libertarians believe that it is very possible to escape the social security system. I am not saying that no good has ever come out of it, but we can’t afford it (seen our debt lately?) and it is beyond the scope of the Federal government. Lastly, when I said that Libertarianism is Biblical, I did not mean that it was God’s ideal government. What I meant was that it does not contradict the New Testament; it is congruent with such teachings. I apologize for the ambiguous wording. I appreciate the dialogue, and if you still choose to disagree then I understand. Lets face it, this world is going to be imperfect no matter whose political dreams come to be, right? I always joke that if all of my Libertarian ideas got implemented…the world might suck just a little less…lol. Thanks.

    Reply
  4. Carrie Allen

    Thanks for the response! I do not have all the answers either, but I am glad to know other Christians are trying to work it all out. I understand where you are coming from with the constitution, and I think you and I just have different views on that as far as history and culture have taken us over the years. I am also studying to be a social worker, so my studies are drastically bent towards having a welfare state and what’s the best way to do it. There are many things about Libertarianism that I agree with – I really enjoy Paul in the GOP debates – angry at the banks, angry at social security etc etc. I personally work with the system day in and day out in the inner city of Oakland and I experience the downfalls of social services more often than not. I think that there is an answer, but unfortunately (for you and Paul), it’s not the decrease of services… it would just never work (in my humble opinion). But at least we can agree on one thing – the government is not doing a great job right now!

    Reply
  5. Ryan M

    Trevor,

    Great stuff man. Great stuff. I will be adding to your thoughts on Libertarianism next week. Though, I may push the envelope a bit further and teeter on some anarcho-capitalistic ideas as well as Natural Law and Two Kingdom theory. Anyways, really good stuff. Nice to see someone defending libertarian philosophy.

    -Ryan

    Reply
    1. Trevor Cartwright

      Hey thanks Ryan. I am looking forward to reading your blog. Two Kingdom theory aye? That is an interesting topic man. I am looking forward to reading your blog, and I am also excited to see the comments it generates lol. Thanks again.

      Reply
  6. Matt Wilcoxen

    Ah yes, libertarianism, the most biblical of political ideologies: “And everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).

    Reply
    1. Paul

      Matt, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” is not a good thing, it is lawlessness. Both times that phrase is used in Judges (chapter 17 and chapter 21) it refers to an extremely bleak and wicked period in Israel’s history where they did not follow God’s Law. Deuteronomy 12:8 states, “You shall not do according to all that we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes.” Proverbs also says, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice” (12:15) and “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart” (21:2).

      I’m sure some libertarians would want everyone to do “what was right in his own eyes,” but I don’t think that is the type of libertarianism that Trevor is talking about.

      Reply
  7. Carrie Allen

    I am still surprised by this but I just realized I can’t fight my way through this on a blog.

    Anyway, SO Biblical:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Eca-INIOw

    😉

    Reply
    1. Aaron Argyropoulos

      Carrie,
      I’m curious as to what your comment means. The video you posted has sound arguments.

      Reply
    2. Trevor Cartwright

      Carrie,
      What do you mean? Are you saying that you don’t agree with Ron Paul? If so, in what ways?

      Reply
    3. Caleb Johnson

      I’m with Aaron and Trevor on this. I have no problem with Ron Paul’s comments there.

      Reply
  8. austin

    Hey trevor someone i was in a discussion with had me read this, i have the same views as you do but am curious your thoughts on it….. http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fincreasinglearning.com%2FDocuments%2F02_God_is_not_a_Libertarian.pdf&h=bAQFvO1lW

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Carrie Allen Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *