Replies

The problem is my friend, is that the word “libertarian” has been grossly perverted.

“God [is] “the true sovereign and the true source of law.” “Western liberty began when the claim of the State to be man’s savior was denied. The State then, according to Scripture, was made the ministry of justice. But, wherever Christ ceases to be man’s Savior, there liberty perishes as the State again asserts its messianic claims. Man is in trouble, and history is the record of his attempt to find salvation. Man needs a savior, and the question is simply one of choice: Christ or the State? No man can choose one without denying the other, and all attempts at compromise are a delusion.”
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=963

Would you not agree that in the minds and through the actions of the majority of libertarians, that Christ and His Father’s laws play a very insignificant role (if any)?

Would you not agree that in the minds and through the actions of the majority of libertarians, that Christ and His Father’s laws play a very insignificant role (if any)?

You're talking as if all libertarians practice a form of groupthink. Libertarians believe in the sovereignty of the individual. The individual is left to determine faith's role in his own life, or whether he will have faith at all, and what in.

If man needs a savior, as the article you quoted touts, libertarians believe he must be left to find that savior on his own. It is not the role of government to lead him to it, or even nudge him in a direction. If the individual is truly sovereign, then he must be left to find the path by his own doing. It is not a choice between Christ or the state. That is a very narrow view to say the least. There are many paths that can be chosen, and not all will lead to salvation for sure. But man must be left to his own device to choose his path.

This is antithical to what theocrats believe. Look at Islam. In an Islamic state, you are coereced by the state into finding what the state deems as appropriate salvation. The penalty for refusing to take the path that the state has chosen for you is usually severe.

Your statement that Liberty did not exist prior to the 'claim of the state to be man's savior was denied'. That's not entirely accurate, but some of the cornerstones of the foundation of the philosophy of liberty itself were indeed laid by Christians. But the point that you didn't make, is that some the earliest ideals of libety came from individuals who wished to break with the traditions and mandates of the church itself. In later years, many of the ideas of liberty as it relates to intellectual freedom began to conflict directly with the church - such as during the Renaissance (the church would very frequently put to death anyone who proposed an idea that did not confirm to it's dogma). Even in early Colonial America, the philosophy of 'self-ownership' took root. See the following example regarding Sir Henry Vane (an early Massachusetts governor):

http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_liberal_en_80.php
Born into the English landed gentry, Sir Henry Vane early rejected the advantages of his class, becoming a Protestant Dissenter. This set him against the government of Charles I and Archbishop Laud and their desire for an absolutist state coupled with a government-sanctioned church based on the European model.

At age twenty two, Henry went out to live with his co-religionists in the newly-established American colonies. The Bostonians soon recognized his merits and elected him governor. But once again Vane saw himself at odds with the mainstream dissenters, who often saw freedom as no more than the right to belong to an approved dissenting church, and a free government as one that put down blasphemy and sin. Vane, however, believed in freedom in its liberal sense, as the right to use oneself as one pleased. Government's function was to protect this right, and if it went beyond this, the people might properly change it. He wrote, “All just executive power [arises] from the free will and gift of the people, [who might] either keep the power in themselves or give up their subjection into the hands and will of another, if they judge that thereby they shall better answer the end of government, to wit, the welfare and safety of the whole.”

If you want to get into a more extreme example, read up on John Locke. Jefferson (a devout deist) publicly scoffed at the dogma prescribed by some religions, but he also recognized the moral role that law had to play.

There is some great information at the Acton institute on how religion and the philosophy of liberty have intertwined over the years. http://www.acton.org/about/a_history_of_liberty.php

My ultimate point is: real libertarians do not put stake in issues. Real libertarians are propoents of the philosophy of individual soveriegnty and self-ownership. A politcal party focuses on issues. Not all libertarians march in lockstep with a party.

I would further add that my libertarianism comes in large part from my Christianity. For example, I believe it is a sin to rob or steal because God says so (I Cor. 6:10, Rom. 13:9, etc.). Consequently, it would be wrong of me to take a gun and threaten my neighbor, taking his money under threat of force, regardless of what good intentions I might have for the money. The number of people committing an act do not change its sinful nature, so it would be equally wrong for two or three friends and I to conspire & jointly rob my neighbor at gunpoint. And similarly, it is wrong for me to join with 300 million other Americans in robbing my neighbor at gunpoint.

Furthermore, God is extremely libertarian in his approach to us. He, being omnipotent, has the power to compel whatever He wants, but instead grants us free choice and lets us live with the consequences of our actions.