On this the penultimate day of the year, with just a few (too few, in my view) days to go until the Iowa caucuses (in which Ron Paul is a—not the—front-runner), it’s worth spending a few moments thinking about the connection between libertartianism and Christianity.
If Ayn Rand is the, er, fountainhead of libertarianism, then the two must be antithetical. Her pseudo-Nietzscheanism is about as far from Christianity as one can get.
Ron Paul would, however, seem to be a different story. Drawing from some of his writings, this piece makes the case for Christian libertarianism. It’s plausible in a sort of Augustinian way, but strikes me as problematical in at least this respect: we need small government, we’re told, because (as James Madison reminded us) men aren’t angels (and so can’t be trusted with power). But if men aren’t angels, if there is evil in the world, then how can we endorse a foreign policy described in the following oversimplified terms?
It is truly unfortunate that modern American churches seem to think the state’s means of “spreading democracy” through aggressive war is more important than spreading the peaceful message of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus came to bring “peace on earth, good will to men,” and by extension the Christian’s goal ought to be the same. Rep. Paul wrote in Liberty Defined: “It’s a far stretch and a great distortion to use Christianity in any way to justify aggression and violence.” War kills the innocent, destroys property, and bankrupts nations. Christian libertarians believe that a non-interventionist foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship is more consistent with how God expects us to interact with world neighbors.
For a brief on the other side, we can turn to this piece, which grants some of what is argued in the aforementioned essay. But:
Paul’s opposition to moral legislation betrays his failure to appreciate the government’s divine mandate to punish evil and praise good. Domestically, that’s a mandate to make moral distinctions between good and evil behavior. To restrict what government can punish simply to whatever limits the freedom of others to chart their personal courses has no basis in Scripture, and is more akin to the 17th century liberalism of John Locke or the 19th century utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill.
Biblical government not only secures us in our lives and property so that “we may lead a peaceful and quiet life.” It also actively cultivates a moral environment that facilitates people’s ability to live their lives “godly and dignified in every way” and pass such moral habits along to their children (1 Timothy 2:2). Libertarians like Ron Paul deny this fundamental biblical political principle. As a result, Ron Paul’s America would look more like It’s a Wonderful Life’s Potterville than Bedford Falls. What is worst in us, unchecked and undiscountenanced, would flourish among us, freely chosen but encouraged by those who would exploit their neighbor’s moral weakness for gain.
Non-pseudo-Nietzschean libertarians have always struck me as somewhat Pollyannaish in their assumptions regarding the power—more precisely, the lack of power—of human sinfulness. They see sinfulness in government, but somehow assume that the rest of us will be “good enough” with only the most minimal restraints. What’s more, they seem to assume that a “merely individualist” public philosophy won’t have untoward consequences for our common lives together.
If you think that moral authority is either unnecessary or can flourish when government gets out of the way, then perhaps you might consider supporting for Ron Paul. If you think that moral authority is necessary, but embattled in this world, then I don’t see how Ron Paul can be your candidate.
December 31st, 2011 | 12:11 am
Ron Paul is not ‘other’ libertarians, and Ayn Rand disliked libertarians anyhow, she was an objectivist and thought libertarians were soft because they believe (at least Ron Paul does) in a moral duty to charity etc. Ayn Rand saw only duty to self. Ron Paul disagreed with her and has said so in multiple interviews. Why do you just decide to ASSUME you know what he thinks, instead of researching it?
December 31st, 2011 | 12:22 am
A couple points.
1. A president is not a dictator—he has to interact with Congress and the court system. Even if Ron Paul is too libertarian, the current bunch occupying Congress is far too statist. The two branches would have to meet in the middle, and it’s not the case that if Ron Paul became president we’d all be living in Galt’s Gulch in four years.
2. Ron Paul is both a libertarian and a constitutionalist. Many of us who believe in constitutionalism, but not libertarianism, still like Paul, because he’s the only candidate who actually bases his decisions within the boundaries of the constitution. Since we live in a federalist system, a Ron Paul presidency would most likely see a large scale devolution of power from the federal government to the states, not a total withering away of government across every level.
December 31st, 2011 | 12:34 am
Ron Paul says we do need government — limited federal and robust state. Ron Paul admits not only fault (moral or otherwise) in government but also admits the same among people. So .. Ron Paul says our legal system and set of laws should be designed and adhered to for the protection of bad doings from one person on to another. Ron Paul says that where the states infringe on one another, the federal government must “referee.” So basically, I don’t understand your argument. Paul doesn’t argue for zero government and a blind faith that people will do enough “good” to account for the needs of society. The states will fill the role of a more robust government where needed … as will our regions and local townships, etc. If you can believe the federal government can be moral and just enough to legislate on behalf of all of us, why not believe that any level of government can do the same? State and locals can be successful. And to the extent that they are not, the federal government can play a role, provided that it is fitting with upholding our constitution. History has shown that the states can get it wrong, too … just like our feds. First, the people must petition their own local governments to affect change. Secondly, the federal government has a responsibility, especially with regards to judicial power, to penalize those who infringe on the rights of individuals as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Paul in favor of such a system and nothing less. Sounds pretty good to me … and millions of others.
December 31st, 2011 | 2:53 am
I had a lot of respect for Ron Paul, and even though I considered his chances of winning the Republican nomination to be in the negative integer realm, I thought that he brought integrity and decency. However, after reading from last week’s THE WEEKLY STANDARD, (a fine publication, one of my favorites) called THE COMPANY PAUL KEEPS, meet Alex Jones, written by James Kirchick, I’ve changed my mind. I’ve always disagreed with Paul’s libertarianism, but what Mr. Kirchick uncovered here, for this article, is beyond the pale, to put it mildly. Paul appears to have endorsed views, or at least allowed them in his newsletter, that any decent person, as well as any nonconspiritorial person, would consider completely outrageous. The article is also on THE WEEKLY STANDARD website:http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html
December 31st, 2011 | 8:24 am
Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian, though she was close.
And there is no conflict between Libertarianism and Christianity (though there is between Objectivism and Christianity). Jesus did not form governmental organizations, he helped the poor himself. That’s what Libertarianism is about, to me.
December 31st, 2011 | 11:03 am
I think libertarianism is ENTIRELY compatible with orthodox Christianity. AND, as a libertarian, I think everyone — Christians, gays, atheists — should be so.
However I also see how the Bible has been misrepresented for political purporses by ALL sides, including libertarianism. The Bible is a radically a-political book and SEEKS to make Christianity compatible with ANY form of government. When Jesus said “reder unto Caeser” he wasn’t talking about noble Stoic republican Rome; rather he referred to rendering unto psychopathic imperial Roman Caesars.
December 31st, 2011 | 11:21 am
“But if men aren’t angels, if there is evil in the world, then how can we endorse a foreign policy described in the following oversimplified terms?”…
…then we are given a ‘bait and switch’ comparing the government’s domestic responsibilities.
Maybe the real complaint is that he is not an evangelical, ‘patriotic’ Christian who will endorse any and all wars to export democracy at the end of a rifle barrel?
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Pacifism-Fruit-Narrow-ebook/dp/B005RIKH62/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
December 31st, 2011 | 11:30 am
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is no different than George McGovern’s. Come home America and all will be right with the world. Iran will stop talking about wiping Isrrael off the map, and stop developing nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda will unilaterally disarm, and open clinics for the needy, etc., etc., etc. America is the source of conflict in the world; heck as Mr. Paul has stated on more than one occasion, our presence in the Middle East led Al Qaeda to attack us on 9/11. This is dangerous and remarkably naive thinking for a potential president.
December 31st, 2011 | 12:38 pm
Paul’s opposition to moral legislation betrays his failure to appreciate the government’s divine mandate to punish evil and praise good.
This mandate is national, not universal. Christ offered a universal mandate for His Church (Matthew 28), but when Paul is talking about rulers (Romans 13), he is talking about them solely in the context of their relation to citizens. Whose citizens? Their citizens. Which citizens? The ones in the Church.
No apologia for international intervention can be found in Scripture. The concept of the neighbor is relevant here. Jesus reminds us that our neighbor is the one we see in need, but also the one whom we’re in close enough proximity to know and help. This would, by definition, preclude foreign intervention, even in the unimaginable case where we could be certain that the people championing said intervention had perfectly pure motives.
December 31st, 2011 | 12:41 pm
In case I wasn’t clear in my italicization and quoting:
The Paul in my blockquote is “Ron,” in my comment on it, “Apostle.” I really like the candidate, but it’s Scripture first, and I should label better for clarity.
December 31st, 2011 | 3:19 pm
Matt writes:
No apologia for international intervention can be found in Scripture. The concept of the neighbor is relevant here. Jesus reminds us that our neighbor is the one we see in need, but also the one whom we’re in close enough proximity to know and help. This would, by definition, preclude foreign intervention, even in the unimaginable case where we could be certain that the people championing said intervention had perfectly pure motives.
What we know today as the modern nation-state is completely foreign to the worldview of the pre-modern world from which Scripture arises. Thus, to think that the Bible is an instructional manual on geo-political matters in the 21st century is almost a paradigm case of an anachronistic reading of an ancient text.
But even if we were to take it that way, the neighbor “we see” today is certainly international, given the nature of modern travel and instantaneous communication. Moreover, if geographical “proximity” is your guide, then the residents of El Paso have a greater obligation to the border towns of Mexico that are closer to El Paso than they do to other Texas towns that are in some cases 900 miles away. So, in this case the “international” is more of a neighbor than the national.
December 31st, 2011 | 4:02 pm
Ron Paul seems to have joined the disciples of John C. Calhoun as as advocate of “nullification,” which strikes me as a highly problematical reading of the Constitution, however much I might favor more “diversity” among the states than imprudent adherents of universal principles might be willing to countenance.
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/12/ron-paul-endorses-nullification/
(See the embedded video clip.)
As for my other non-foreign policy issue, I am very concerned about what Michael Novak has called “moral ecology.” A non-objectivist libertarianism presupposes a healthy moral ecology–a functioning civil society that supports and encourages self-restraint and neighborliness among the citizenry. The American founders and their English philosophical forebears (like John Locke) presupposed that such a moral ecology existed. Can we be confident that it still exists, that a singular emphasis on liberty won’t just license us to do as we please?
December 31st, 2011 | 6:49 pm
What we know today as the modern nation-state is completely foreign to the worldview of the pre-modern world from which Scripture arises. Thus, to think that the Bible is an instructional manual on geo-political matters in the 21st century is almost a paradigm case of an anachronistic reading of an ancient text.
Why couldn’t this criticism apply to the original post just as well as mine? I think it applies there even better. If not, are we to agree, then, that the Bible says nothing about how foreign policy ought to be conducted? That experts, by virtue of their recognition as such, ought to be given an entirely free hand? Unless this is the goal, a standard is needed. Romans 13 appears to provide one. Do contemporary nation-states differ from the Roman Empire? Sure. Modern sexual practice diverges pretty starkly from ancient ones, too. Are you content to let experts hash that issue out as well, entirely without Scriptural influence?
January 1st, 2012 | 1:02 am
[...] Libertarianism and Christianity – Joseph Knippenberg, First Things/First Thoughts [...]
January 2nd, 2012 | 11:25 am
As a result, Ron Paul’s America would look more like It’s a Wonderful Life’s Potterville than Bedford Falls. What is worst in us, unchecked and undiscountenanced, would flourish among us, freely chosen but encouraged by those who would exploit their neighbor’s moral weakness for gain.
I’m not quite seeing this. Bedford Falls was not created in the movie by any particular regulation. It was created by the choices of individuals. In fact, both Pottersville and Bedford Falls are examples of the maxim that ‘life is what you make of it’. Both alternate universes have the same type of government, enjoyed the same type of New Deal policies like FDR’s closing of the banks during the panic, bank examiners, and so on. One place is nice because people choose to act nice, the other place is sucky because people choose to act sucky. As someone who leans left, I acknowledge the fact that ‘right policies’ still will only get you so far.
Paul’s opposition to moral legislation betrays his failure to appreciate the government’s divine mandate to punish evil and praise good. Domestically, that’s a mandate to make moral distinctions between good and evil behavior.
There’s a slight problem with government’s ‘divine mandate to punish evil and praise good’, it’s a complete moral failure. It’s a worse historical failure than communism is. At the end of that road you are left with either a human beign claiming the right to rule over other people as God (i.e. North Korea in our modern age, Ancient Egypt in older ages) or as an agent of God (i.e. ‘the divine right of kings’).
This ‘mandate’ can only work when its jurisdication is highly circumscribed. On most moral issues the gov’t has no right to speak either way because the gov’t has no legitimate authority to speak. To use a rough analogy, one can say sex is a major moral issue for a married couple. That doesn’t mean you have the right to peep into your neighbor’s bedroom window at 2 in the morning and start lecturing them about what you think they are doing right and wrong in the bedroom. As important as that couples sex life is for them, it is more important that you keep your place and mind your business and if you fail to do that your neighbor has a right to point his shotgun in your face and tell you to get out of his window!
Stephen P
2. Ron Paul is both a libertarian and a constitutionalist.
It’s a good point to note that there’s a sharp difference between libertarians and constitutionalists. Libertarians are mostly cut from the same cloth as Ayn Rand. Yes Rand disagreed with other libertarians, but fundamentally there’s no difference between so-called ‘objectivists’ who follow Rand and other libertarian types. Both systems of thought suffer the same defect, they are anti-American IMO.
By anti-American I mean they are foreign systems of thought obsessed with policies. What’s interesting about the Constitution is that its less about policies than procedures. The Founders thought less about specific policy issues (should the US expand its land by lauching imperial wars? Should it have universal public education? Should it have an income tax? Should it have a safety net?) than they did about procedures. They didn’t con themselves into thinking they could figure out what policies would be good in a young and growing nation. They figured it was better to create a good system of procedures for figuring out what to do.
Libertarians don’t do that for the most part. They figure they can figure out all acceptable policies by literally ‘computing’ them from first principles. Hence a question like unemployment insurance is not debated by asking does it do more good than harm? It’s debated by ‘computing’ the right answer from supposedly ‘objective’ first principles and then the real world doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if its a great help to those who loose their jobs while imposing a small cost on everyone else. In the libertarian universe if you violate a first principle the scale of the infraction doesn’t matter. There’s no difference between ‘stealing’ pennies out of people’s paychecks and Hitler throwing the Jews in the gas chambers.
It’s interesting to really ask libertarians what purpose they think democracy really serves or should serve. In a libertarian world, what would even be the purpose of an election? To figure out what the state bird should be? All really serious policies have already been deduced by the libertarian philosopher kings, after all! In fact, libertarians don’t really care about democracy at all. It’s just a means to an end and if some other means gets you to the promised land more efficiently, then ditch democracy and go with that. The crowning achievement of American thought was to recognize that ‘its the means stupid’. A rather trivial tax on tea is not the issue, a tax imposed without representation is. To the libertarian, though, there’s no difference between a tax imposed with representation and without. If it violates the derived absolute rights of tea drinkers, its tyranny. If not then its not.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that many libertarian thinkers are not American. People like Rand came from countries with long histories of absolute rulers who had to contend with what policies to implement. ‘Procedures’ were mere after thoughts which could be changed willy nilly. To the English and American mindset, though, it is the opposite way around. Whether there’s a tax on tea is a mere afterthought. We can always change the tax to be on whiskey, or hard cider, or imported goods. It’s a bigger deal, though, to decide that each state won’t get exactly two Senators no matter how big or small they are or to decide that the King may not propose a new tax unless Parliment is in session and approves it first!
January 2nd, 2012 | 11:35 am
Ron Paul seems to have joined the disciples of John C. Calhoun as as advocate of “nullification,” which strikes me as a highly problematical reading of the Constitution,…
Ron Paul strikes me as a creepy opportunist more than anything else. His investment portfolio, centered heavily on gold and shorting stocks, is so over the top as to be borderline unpatriotic in my opinion….he’s the type of person whose rooting for the world to collapse so he can pat himself on the back and say “see I was right after all”. He happily embraced racist kooks back in the 80′s in order to mop up support from the aging old school racists of the right wing fringe, now that that crew is mostly in the grave or too senile to be of help to him he mucks around looking for other nuts to fill out his niche.
Paul enjoys the intellectual affirmative action of being hyped in the popular media as a man of principle. He is hyped as an idealist who is ‘honest’ and so is given credit for being above ‘mere politics’. Of course this narrative allows one to write Paul off for being ‘too idealist’, for not ‘being practical’ but at the cost of giving him undue credit.
January 3rd, 2012 | 11:24 am
[...] presidential campaigns and the Iowa caucus, Joseph Knippenberg has voiced serious concern on the First Things blog regarding the compatibility of Ron Paul’s libertarianism with traditional Christian social [...]
January 3rd, 2012 | 5:46 pm
Reminds me of my article in “Markets and Morality” (based on the book):
http://www.acton.org/sites/v4.acton.org/files/pdf/5.2.439-457.ARTICLE.Schansberg,%20D.,%20Eric–Common%20Ground%20between%20the%20Philosphies%20of%20Christianity%20and%20Libertarianism.pdf
January 3rd, 2012 | 7:59 pm
[...] the libertarian rejection of aggression is clearly consistent with the Gospel. Joseph Knippenberg raises an objection to this passage that isn’t very compelling: But if men aren’t angels, if there [...]
January 4th, 2012 | 10:23 am
Later Boonton can tell you if you, too, have a
“borderline unpatriotic” stock portfolio.
Because the idea of investment isn’t to make money and secure your family against future uncertainty, it’s to show that you’re really flying the flag. Better to put your grandchildren at risk than to make people who look at your financial statements feel bad things.
January 4th, 2012 | 1:28 pm
Matt,
Suppose I played for the Jets. What if at the beginning of the season I placed a huge bet that the team wouldn’t make it to the playoffs? Now assume also that I can demonstrate there’s absolutely nothing corrupt about my action. In no way will I ‘throw a game’ in order to win the bet. Even if I could demonstrate this, the NFL would kick me out. Why?
Well I could say that the team was lousey this year and I have a duty to ‘provide for my grandchildren’ and if that meant putting my money against them so be it. But the NFL would reply that I have a duty not to be disloyal, and betting against the team is disloyal, even if its objectively a rational bet to make.
Paul’s portfolio is essentially a bet against civilization. It’s about as close as you can get to ‘bomb shelter and canned food and shot guns’ as you can get with a 401K. So sorry you don’t have to use your 401K as a flag if you’re running for one of the highest office’s in civilization, but at a certain point its fair to call you out on what is essentially disloyality to civilization. If you’re rooting for the world to burn, the world should see you as something other than a friend.
January 4th, 2012 | 3:32 pm
I think Knippenberg’s article does point out one of the weaknesses of Paul’s philosophy. I certainly don’t want children to be brought up in a country like Holland, where sex workers advertise openly in shop windows. I heard a Libertarian point out that laws that prohibit such activities as drug use, prostitution and sexual intercourse only make sense if we adhere to a belief that we, in the collective, are responsible for what our neighbor does. Perhaps we are not, but we are responsible individually for how we vote, what we advocate socially, and what sort of government we support. Are we to advocate for abolishing an apriori cultural moral compass for children to be born and launched into?
On the other hand, there is a great deal of distortion and corruption of the mandate of government to reward the good and punish the evil. Just because I don’t want to legalize public drug use, doesn’t mean I want to go around reporting every neighbor who uses marijuana, or have a person thrown into prison for a pot seed under a car mat (this actually happened under zero tolerance in the ’80′s). Or that I advocate that the government and employers drug test welfare recipients or prospective employees. To me, this is absurd and intrusive.
To go even farther in this vein, many herbalists are painfully aware of the suppression of botanical and natural medicine by government influenced by the wealth of Carnegie in the early 1900′s. I could say more in this vein, but I shall let it go for the sake of brevity.
It is, however, not just the Right that oversteps reason in these areas. The Communists were even more oppressive in their regulation of “decadent” music, sexual behavior, literature and other aspects of culture. When one belongs to the State, one doesn’t dally in unsanctioned activity.
I don’t believe that Ron Paul has the end word on what is constitutional either. I don’t believe the man takes the time to examine all sides to the issues before precribing some panacea for our ills. His view that we should let the states decide on Sharia law, and other controversial questions shows a dangerous lack of reflection on constitutional intent, as far as I am concerned. I even start to wonder who is supporting the man.
And insofar as cutting “entitlements” goes, he shows no sensitivity, that I have seen, about who he could be hurting with sudden and drastic measures, no matter how much I would support a gradual, gentle change in these areas.
January 5th, 2012 | 7:18 am
Boonton,
I should have responded more thoughtfully to what you wrote, but I don’t think that betting against 401(k)’s is the same thing as betting against civilization. The last fifty years have been a very abnormal time for capitalism. In the long run, any possible success we can have will be predicated upon our not doing this anymore, and starting to do something different.
Paul is on the record, for at least three decades, as saying that he thinks a currency system based on precious metals is the key to financial solvency here and abroad. He thinks that it would be good for the country if everyone invested the way he did. He got this idea from a fully developed, if heterodox, economic school, many practitioners of which were predicting the 2008 downturn while mainstream economists were busy forecasting clear sailing.
January 12th, 2012 | 5:06 pm
[...] First Thoughts, the blog of the academic journal of Christianity and public life First Things. This is a thoughtful post to which I may respond here. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact