I love libertarians.
Actually, I love some libertarians. Specifically, I love reading the essays at LewRockwell.com and following their blog. I find some other libertarian groups and think tanks useful on issues, but most of them are essentially “Big Government” Libertarians who are fine foisting homosexual marriage on the country. Furthermore, many of them were silent or complicit in the insane and bankrupting foreign interventionism of the last twelve years or so.
But I think I need to push back a bit on Lawrence Vance’s blog post: “Why Conservative Christians Need To Be Libertarians.”
The Acton Institute is advertising a new event to be held on January 30: “Why Libertarians Need God.” The speaker is Jay Richards. Says the ad (with my correction of a typo):
“There are many who believe that atheism and libertarianism are compatible. Some even contend that atheism is essential to libertarianism. But the opposite is much nearer the truth. The core ‘libertarian’ principles if [of] individual rights, freedom and responsibility, reason, moral truth, and limited government make little sense in an atheistic and materialistic worldview; but make far more sense in a theistic context. Come hear Dr. Jay Richards explain and please the case ‘Why Libertarians Need God.’”
I agree with Dr. Richards. Libertarians need God. Just like Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, whites, and blacks need God. My problem is a conservative lecturing libertarians on why they need God. I’m afraid that it is conversion to the god of conservatism that is the real agenda.
I am not a big fan of the “conservative” label since I don’t always know what it means. In general I use it when I’m criticizing RINOs and think the meaning can be gleaned by the context. I may agree with Vance more than Richards in my general approach to society.
But I just want to make the point that the Bible is not a Libertarian document and if Libertarians need the true God, then they need to be governed by his word. Specifically, the Bible does not want society to be neutral on sex outside of marriage. It regards marriage as an institution that is supposed to be established by boundaries and it tells societies to sanction people who violate those boundaries.
This may be a moot point in a secular society like the United States. I’m okay with a “libertarian” compromise in a pluralistic culture. However, I should mention now that it is obvious that the whole point of the “sexual revolution” was to force the government into our lives to force us all to cooperate with sexual perversion and immorality. So the “keep the government out of the bedroom” slogan was just a bait and switch. Vance may believe in it, but it doesn’t look like it is a viable option right now.
But the larger point that needs to be made is that Jesus is the high king and the world is his kingdom. As secular political philosophies go, the libertarianism of LewRockwell.com makes more sense than many others. But why believe that the social order is supposed to be deduced from impersonal principles like “individual rights”? God gave us the Bible so we can rule ourselves. He never expected us to figure out how to do so by deductions from the “non-aggression principle.”
The Bible doesn’t vindicate “conservatism” because many conservatives also develop their social philosophy without submitting to Jesus as he is revealed in the Bible. But it doesn’t endorse libertarianism either.