Posted on 11/11/2004 9:34:13 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds that consent is the basis of morality and therefore that any activity - prostitution, "assisted" suicide, you-name-it between consenting adults ought to be legal. Libertarians also believe that man "owns" himself, and therefore may do anything to himself he pleases - use drugs, commit suicide, again, you-name-it.
It is logically impossible for Libertarianism to be America's founding philosophy.
At least 30 years ago, most Americans could quote the beginning of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Whether you say UNalienable or INalienable, understanding the concept of rights you can't give, sell, or trade away is key to understanding Christian freedom.
First, let's be clear what each of these rights are and where they come from. The right to life is pretty straightforward. All rights arise from the prohibition of moral rules, and the right to life comes from God's rule that says it is wrong to kill innocent people. Although you can't give it away, you can forfeit your right to life when you initiate the use of deadly force against another without first having been threatened with deadly force by the person you attack. This is why God had to command us to use capital punishment, and gave us examples in the Old Testament to show that self-defense was justified. Otherwise, since God's rules apply all the time, we might be confused into thinking that the commandment against murder prevented us from resisting someone who was trying to kill us, or punishing one who had killed another.
To understand the right to "liberty" we need to know what liberty is. Say you have $100, and you were planning to buy your self a real nice dinner with it. Then a thief steals your $100. You have lost the "liberty" to control how the $100 is spent. You have lost liberty.
The same analysis applies if someone makes you a slave against your will. You have lost the "liberty" to control how your labor is employed. The slave owner takes this liberty from you.
We lose "liberty" whenever someone violates God's moral rules. The right to liberty is a command to government to prevent and punish those who would violate God's moral rules.
The right to the pursuit of happiness is similar to the right to liberty. The right to liberty recognizes that we lose our liberty when our fellow men violate God's moral rules. Protecting our liberty is the reason we command government to set up police forces, armies and navies. They protect us from foreign aggressors and domestic criminals. But what protects us from government itself?
Protecting us from government is the work of the right to the pursuit of happiness. This right does not mean license to do whatever gives us pleasure. We cannot molest children, say, and claim the protection of the right to pursue happiness.
This right is based on the idea that God made us in such a way that we cannot be truly happy unless we follow God's moral rules. As a political right, then, the right to the pursuit of happiness is a right to be free from a government that commands us - or just allows us - to do what God forbids, or that forbids us to do what God commands, or just allows.
For example, God does not command us to have children, but if we are married, he allows us to engage in the activity that can result in reproduction. China, however, forbids people to have more than two children. China thus forbids what God allows, and it interferes with the right to the pursuit of happiness of its citizens.
The U.S. government allows its citizens to have abortions, though it does not (yet) command abortions as China does. Nevertheless, simply by allowing evil - the murder of the unborn - the U.S. government interferes with the right to the pursuit of happiness of both born and unborn citizens. It allows citizens to commit evil that will cause them pain and remorse later.
Okay, we know what these rights are now, but why is it important that we not be able to give or sell them? After all, if two adults consent to some voluntary transaction, shouldn't government allow them to engage in it?
The answer is unalienable rights cannot exist if consent, not God's rules, defines what is right and wrong.
If consent defines what is right, there is no inalienable right to life. Imagine I'm a poor man but want to leave a large inheritance to my children. Say I agree to "star" in a snuff film - to be killed on camera in return for a big chunk of cash which I will bequeath to my kids. If government honors my contract with the producer, it has just thrown my inalienable right to life out the window. It has also thrown God's commandment not to murder innocent people out the window, too.
Likewise, say I want to be a prostitute, and other consenting adults want to hire me for sex. No one else is involved, right? Why shouldn't government honor my agreement with my "johns."
This situation is a bit more subtle, but presents the same conflict - either consent is the basis of right and wrong, or God's rules are.
If the "john" is married, clearly there is an external cost to allowing prostitution. The john's wife has a right to fidelity - the husband's faithfulness - created both by God's commandment against adultery and by contact - by the husband's promise. But the external cost of prostitution is imposed not only on the wife, but also on society. Marriage is a bilateral monopoly that increases human productivity by taking many transactions out of the market. When the costs of prostitution are not stopped, they reduce the value of marriage. At the margin, there are fewer marriages, and society - all of us - loose the savings that marriages produce. We are all made poorer.
But what if the prostitute's customer is single? Surely then nobody else is involved and we ought to allow the consensual prostitution, right?
We can answer this question by looking to see whether God's rules apply to us as individuals at all times, or if they only have force when we interact with others. The truth is, of course, that God's rules apply to us at all times. What we call "virtues" arise from the application of God's moral rules to the self. For example, if I do not have the virtue of thrift - if I spend my money like there was no tomorrow - I rob myself of my future consumption. The virtue of "thrift" arises from applying God's moral rule against theft to the self.
To return to our example with the prostitute and the unmarried customer, God's moral rules for sex tell us that sex is the physical manifestation of a spiritual union between a man and a woman brought together by God. To use sex as just a meaningless recreational pursuit violates this rule. But applying this rule to the self - even when that "self" is unmarried - gives rise to the virtue of chastity.
Is there a practical reason that government should encourage chastity by refusing to enforce a contract for prostitution - or the same thing, heterosexual or homosexual promiscuity - between two unmarried people?
The answer depends on whether using sex in a way that violates God's rules can really increase the welfare of the individuals who engage in that activity. All sin appears pleasurable for a short time, but in the long run it produces more costs than benefits.
In the case of adultery, the momentary pleasure must be weighed against the risk of disease and the cost of the losing the true happiness that can only come from following God's moral rules. The lesson of history is that prohibiting prostitution is not a rule without a reason. Every society that has bowed to the desire for a short term pleasure that is less than the long term benefits foregone has fallen - look particularly at Greece and Rome.
America today is under attack by people who claim to champion freedom but who, in reality, champion a philosophy that would destroy freedom because it would destroy our inalienable rights. These people call themselves "Libertarians." They claim that the basis of right and wrong in interactions between people is only consent - not God's rules - and that society has no power to impose any standard of right and wrong on individuals in how they use their own bodies. Libertarians think prostitution, drug use, and suicide should all be legalized.
John Locke answered the Libertarians more than 300 years ago. Locke said, in his Second Treatise on Government, that merely having the power to engage in an activity does not make it right. For Locke, as for America's Founders, the only true source of right was God's moral rules. But if consent is the basis of right and wrong, there can be no inalienable rights, because one can always consent to give his rights away.
We may legitimately question whether we want to use law, the coercive power of the state, to enforce God's rules or rely on extra-legal sanctions like social norms. The answer is always that we want to use the enforcement method that produces the greatest benefits at the least cost. For example, we could not afford to put policemen in every individual's bedroom, so we have traditionally relied on social norms to enforce moral rules relating to sex.
But the lesson of the last 150 years of American history is that evil first attacks and destroys social norms, then changes the law.
Rights arise from moral rules. But the moral rules that create our law are simply whatever a majority of citizens believe is right or wrong. If we want Godly laws, we must bring a majority of citizens into agreement with God by introducing them to Jesus Christ.
I don't.
But what I want to know is why you want us to be ruled by the churches (your flavor only, of course). At least that's what your side in these debates always seem to espouse.
tnlibertarian said it well. When are the gunpoint baptisms starting? Or is that not what you want? If not, then what?
LQ
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
It's not illegal to worship any god other then the Christian god.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments
It is not illegal to make idols and worship them.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
It is not illegal to commit blasphemy.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
It is not illegal to ignore the sabbath.
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
It not not illegal to dishonor your father or mother.
Thou shalt not kill(or murder depending on translation)
Murder is illegal
Thou shalt not commit adultery
This has been both legal and illegal in our history. It is currently legal but may face civil penalty.
Thou shalt not steal
This is illegal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Perjury is illegal as is slander.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's
Not illegal
For the being the foundation of our legal system we sure seem to be missing a lot of the basics from Christianity. Of government was created, based on reason, to protect out rights. Those things that are illegal are those things which abridge our rights. It is no coincidence that the commandments that share an analog in our legal system are also those that infringe on rights.
Man's laws just can't contradict God's law. So for example if we made a laws that said, "no one can prevent a woman from killing her unborn baby," or "same-sex sodomites have a right to marry each other" then these laws would be found unGodstitutional and struck down.
ROFLMAO!!! I thought the words I made up were out there but that one is just cracking me up....
LQ
You love dope pushers, pimps, and the gay agenda as much as Hillary.
Why is it that when I listen to the Christian Conservatives I get the impression that activist judges are a problem only if they are from the left. What ever happened to strict constructionism. Common law? We have a WRITTEN constitution.
You guys are hysterical. Ashcroft is out of office you know, he's not snooping on your library lists anymore.
Hmmm... Okay:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
And yet, in our society, people are legally allowed to worship Ba'al, Mithras or Odin.
Is a law that distinctly goes against God's law by allowing the worship of other Gods therefore "unGodstitutional?"
If we did away with the laws against gambling, for instance, would that be okay? There would be no laws concerning gambling at all, therefore there would be no law against God's law.
Let's see: Hillary is a big supporter of the drug war and is also opposed to the legalization of prostitution. After all, liberals of all stripes love to use government to control what consenting adults do with their bodies. So, you and Hil should get along smashingly.
As for the gay agenda, well, I'm opposed to gay marriage but I am also opposed to sodomy laws.
Nice try, though. Everyone who reads your posts knows that you worship Big Government over any other gods.
That's a lot of totalitarian, socialist crap to be posted on a forum named Freerepublic. (And theocratic, to boot)
No. Indeed, libertarianism is the precise opposite of what you are saying. The Individual (notice that I capitalised that word) is the arbiter of his morality and liberty and faith. The law, in libertarianism (or, indeed, in capitalism) is quite simple: governments exist solely to secure rights. You have total liberty to act as you choose so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. It is the only social system based on the protection of human rights.
I find it interesting that you seem to be drifting from one of the central dogmas of Christianity: free will. Either we have liberty or we do not. We were given free will by God, and that is liberty. God does not own me. God does not command me. God can give me advice, God can try and steer me in the right direction. I am the arbiter of my fate. I control me. I. I, and I alone, direct my actions on this earth. God, by His gift of free will, cannot change that. Only government, through the force of a gun, can change that. And this is what you advocate. This is what libertarians reject.
Ahhhh, but there you have the root of the problem. The problem is that this stuff doesn't necessarily remain confined to your property, and the results are often impossible to keep out of sight.
For example, although "sex and/or prostitution in the privacy your own bedroom" might be OK as an abstract concept, in the real world the relaxation of sexual mores has unfortunately resulted in millions of abortions, not to mention large numbers of illegitimate offspring who perpetuate the problem illegitimacy. And, of course, the resultant sexual freedom has evidently created a society that not only tolerates, but in many ways celebrates criminal activities. (This is probably caused, in part, by the absence of fathers in the upbringing of children in those portions of society.)
The answer to that is for the surrounding society to not tolerate such behavior -- to condemn it perhaps, and certainly not to subsidize it.
But in order for that to work, the moral case has to be made that irresponsible sexual behavior is wrong. And truth of the matter is that our society has done just the opposite, and elevated the idea of sexual expression above that of responsible sexual behavior.
What's really missing from all of this is that we cannot talk about "liberty" without acknowledging the necessary counterweight of "responsibility." If you try to exercise liberty without responsibility, you've got chaos.
Which raises the obvious question: how are the boundaries of "responsibility" defined? Are they defined by utilitarian rules, or are they in some sense absolute?
As a libertarian living in Canada (ya, I know, it's a tough life) I am always curious to know when religious conservatives think the line of government intervention should be drawn.
For example, I think most drugs should be legalized since we already have cigarettes and alcohol. A typical evangelical reply is that these types of things hurt the individual and cost society in various of ways to which I add:
Fat people cost society in a myraid of ways, what should the government do with them? Likewise with seniors, children with disabilities and people who ride motorcyles. Where does the legislation end?
MIT
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provisions that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority. - Thomas Jefferson
"the relaxation of sexual mores has unfortunately resulted in millions of abortions, not to mention large numbers of illegitimate offspring who perpetuate the problem illegitimacy"
Whatever happened to the concept that a child has dignity of his/her own, regardless of the circumstances of conception?
I can't believe anyone uses the term "illegitimate" to refer to a human being anymore. Sickening.
article nomination for philosophy ping list
Perhaps, but nobody is saying that the government should not have the power to regulate or ban so-called secondary effects. If you legalize prostitution, that doesn't mean the government can't ban sex in public. Similarly, just because you legalize certain drugs (such as alcohol) doesn't mean you can't ban public drunkenness or drunk driving.
Government should use the least restrictive laws neccesary to deal with violations of rights. That's why we ban drunk driving but let you get as drunk as you want in your living room.
The answer to that is for the surrounding society to not tolerate such behavior -- to condemn it perhaps, and certainly not to subsidize it
Private citizens are free to refuse to tolerate behavior they find immoral. Don't like the swingers next door? Don't associate with them. Don't like people who smoke pot? Don't let them into your house. However, don't demand that government enforce your moral code for you.
What's really missing from all of this is that we cannot talk about "liberty" without acknowledging the necessary counterweight of "responsibility." If you try to exercise liberty without responsibility, you've got chaos.
Agreed, but I think I've laid out a pretty good framework that balances rights with responsibility. The old cliche is true: you have the right to swing your fist only so far as your fist doesn't connect with my nose.
Taken to its logical end, both the ideology of the left and the big government right leads to a state that serves as mommy: Eat your peas, throw away that junk food, get more exercise, don't smoke, don't drink and don't look at Playboy.
FAREWELL ADDRESS (1796)
George Washington
Friends and Fellow-Citizens:
".. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.
The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. ...
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
.... In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
...Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. ...
Source: J.D. Richardson, ed., Compilation of Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol.1 (1907), 213.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.