Christian Libertarians

Once again I refer to Denninger, not because I necessarily like the guy or come anywhere close to agreeing with him on everything, but because he is fairly articulate and lays things out for everyone to read for themselves.

I describe myself as a Christian libertarian.  I have no desire to tell other people what to do.  It's just something lacking in my make-up.  I have been a supervisor.  I have been a director.  I don't like it.  I just like to have a job, do it, do it well, and do my best to help other people do theirs.  There's nothing wrong with people who like to give orders.  For some folks, that's about all they are good at.  Somebody has to say, We need to get this done rather than that.  Fine.  My wife is like that.  All the Krauts German Catholics in her family are like that.  You have to know when to listen and when to go ahead and do what needs to be done -- because they have no idea. 

A Christian libertarian believes that the first person you need to fix -- actually the only person you need to fix is yourself, which, happily, coincides with the immutable fact that you are the only person you can fix.  I want to be a good example to others.  I want to be a conduit of the love of God to others.  I want to do that voluntarily out of a heart intent on serving God.

To be forced to do the right thing takes all of the virtue out of it.

When we incarcerate criminals we are not necessarily forcing them to do the right thing, but we are preventing them from do wrong things, from taking away the property, life, or rights of others.  These are the only things that should be crimes.  If you want to offer rehabilitation for drug users, they might take advantage of it.  If drug users commit property crimes, assaults, or other crimes because of their drug use, they should be locked up because of theft, driving under the influence, rape, or whatever -- not because they used drugs.  The system should not care why they broke the law, only that they did.

Families, churches, and communities are responsible for teaching young people the difference between right and wrong -- not the government.  Some communities and some families are going to be more tolerant of some things; others will be less tolerant.  The Constitution does not call for equal community standards but for equal treatment under the law.  If the inculcated standards result in a person thinking that illegal activities are acceptable, they still get the same penalty as the person held to higher standards.

But this also points to a problem I have mentioned before.  What is legal should align with what is right in a general sense.  Murder is wrong; therefore, murder is illegal.  Theft is wrong; therefore, theft should be illegal.  But not everything that is wrong should be illegal.  Everybody has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I would add to enjoy one's property as the person sees fit so long as it does no harm to another.  No one has a right to happiness.  No one has a right to a job.  No one has a right to not be offended.  No one has a right to feel good about themselves.  No one has a right to not have their feeling hurt, to be called names, to be ridiculed.  These things might be wrong, but they should not be illegal.

Also, no one except me has a right to my property or to dictate to me what I can have or how much I can have.

I am a libertarian because it seems obvious to me that the best safeguard against ridiculously restrictive laws is to rein in the federal government, to limit its power over the states, to restrict its reach to actual interstate commerce rather than potential commerce, and to permit the states, counties and municipalities to make their own decisions on what they are going to allow in their communities.  Thus drug use and drug trafficking could be controlled by states.  Abortion should be a decision left to states and communities.  Voting requirements, public school standards, firearms laws, etc. should all be left to the state, county or city so long as such requirements do not infringe on the limits given in the Constitution.

Again, to me, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" severely limits a municipality's ability to restrict firearms ownership, but it might not prevent a city from outlawing concealed carry.  Similarly the First Amendment covers primarily political and religious speech, but not obscenity, though that has obviously been turned on its head.

I am a Christian because I desire to live a holy life that is pleasing to God.  My job as a Christian is to make disciples.  If we Christians did a better job of that, vices and vulgarity would be a lot less prevalent in society.  We are offering individuals the opportunity to reject conformity to the world's standards and be transformed into new creatures in Christ.  I don't see laws against various bad habits and self-destructive behaviors as being particularly helpful to that transformation.

All I ask is the chance to live my life with the least possible interference from governments at all levels.  I want to be dependent on God, my family, and my brothers and sisters in Christ.  I want to be a good example to my children and grandchildren, to uphold biblical values, to support my church, my country and my community where I can.  I want to work to provide for myself and to have something to help out those in need -- on my own without a government mandate, without having a police state force me to be "charitable" at gunpoint.

Finally, I don't agree with Heinlein's materialistic philosophy, but I wholeheartedly agree that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.  It may seem contradictory, but if I were to raise my banners, at the top of the pole would be the Christian flag with the emblem of the Cross declaring life, love, and hope for all.  Below that, though, would be the "Don't Tread on Me" banner with its rattler, and last would fly "TANSTAAFL", because I am a Christian libertarian.