The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum

I am aware that many of you who may see this are Atheist, Agnostic, or Deist. You may of course choose not to read it; but since 80% of the U.S. claims to be Christian it may be worth taking note. Many have co-opted religious beliefs to increase power and the size of government. It may be worth while to feed them something from a Christian libertarian.

As we know God created man with inalienable rights. One of these is freedom of will. Although God requests obedience he always provides the opportunity for disobedience. The nature of the relationship is that one chooses to be with God and follow God. In the garden of Eden  everything was “good”, except the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. And the serpent said “Take the pill Neo.”

If big government ran the garden there is no way Eve would have eaten the fruit. They may not have chopped the tree down but they would have attempted to block access. Government is about compulsion, God is about making the right choice through exercising our free will. If you truly love someone you will let them go, if they love you they will come back (or not leave.) Yes things do have consequences, but bad consequences are not the same as prior restraint.

Abraham is a good libertarian figure. He has allegiance to no government, pays no taxes, does what he pleases, doesn’t harm anyone who doesn’t harm him, is wealthy and prosperous. City states look to him for help. He follows God by choice and is faithful. No man makes Abraham do anything and Abraham does not usurp anyone’s authority. Abraham may very well be an Anarcho-Capitalist.

A few generations later the Anarcho- capitalists enroll in an Egyptian government program. They get food stamps, they are in this position because of a few bad free will decisions, selling their brother was bad kharma. Josephs expertise benefits Egypt now and not his family. How many libertarians are surprised that government programs lead to enslavement?

In the book of Joshua, the children of Israel settle a series of property rights issues where nations had applied imminent domain to Abraham’s inheritance. After this successful judgment Joshua presents everyone a choice and the people unanimously enter a contractual agreement to serve the Lord. Yes you have the Law given by God, which was designed for the best possible way for this Large family to get along, but you did not have a government. You had judges, but no standing government.

For many years things are good or bad relying on the free will choices of the people adjudicated by judges. The people get the foolish idea that they want a King, a Government. God emphatically tells them this is a bad idea:

1Samuel 8:7-18  And Jehovah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not be king over them.   According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, in that they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.   Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit thou shalt protest solemnly unto them, and shalt show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.  And Samuel told all the words of Jehovah unto the people that asked of him a king.   And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them unto him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots;  and he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and he will set some to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots.  And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.  And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.  And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.  He will take the tenth of your flocks: and ye shall be his servants.   And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and Jehovah will not answer you in that day.
 
God is not pro- big government. Three kings later you have civil war, and division of kingdoms into Israel and Judah. More often than not they had bad kings. The experiment in government ends in conquest.

What prompted me to write this is that someone mentioned Romans chapter 13 in the thread about Fusion Candidates. To reply to this there would have been way off topic.

Rom 13:1-7  Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.   Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God's service, attending continually upon this very thing.  Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

This has been used as a justification of the divine right of kings and other governments since then. We have already seen God’s thoughts on kings though in First Samuel.

There are nothing about the Greek words translated higher powers, ruler, ministers that are reserved to civil government. No where else in the book of Romans can you construe a discussion of government, so the context does not lead one to think of government. The rest of the book discusses individuals in relation to God and to other Christians. Would it not make more sense that Paul is reinforcing his own authority and not Ceasar’s.

Taken to the point of absurd you would have to believe that Adolf Hitler was a minister of God and those who stood on Christian principal against him were against God and deserved the concentration camps. If you say that it does not apply to ALL government, then how are we to decide what government it does or does not apply? Since the standard in the rest of the chapter is Love, not compulsion is it not more reasonable to think this applies to Christian leadership, not Civil government?

The new testament says very little about government directly.  In first Timothy we have:

1Timothy 2:1-4  I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

We are to pray for kings and all that are in authority that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives. Isn’t that about all that we want from government is to be left alone and keep the peace.


Individual responsibility is emphasized in many places.

2Thesalonians 3:10-12  For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.  For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

So much for welfare and food stamps for the able bodied.

1Timothy 5:16  If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

Let people take care of their own family and if there is no family then the church handles it, no mention of government involved at all.

The new testament sets forth rules and practices for the Christian church. It exhorts people to follow God through Jesus Christ and accept a Christian life. At no point does it advocate forcing anything on anyone outside of the church.

At many places Christians are encouraged to be good stewards of their possessions. This may include being “Green” and environmentally conscience, but no where is anyone told to force their neighbors to be good stewards.  Outside of encouraging people to be good Christians, pretty much they should mind their own business.

One of the commandments is Thou shalt not steal. No where does it say that you can gather together and elect officials who appoint people to steal. This commandment alone should scream against big government to Christians. Some how when we give folks a fancy title it no longer is stealing. God only asked that people give 10%, how much does government demand? 2Corinthians 9:7  Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.


Well now you know that a “religious nutcase” can be a good libertarian.  God given freedom of will is something that should not be given up lightly. When it is within our ability we should take it back. I hope this helps you to understand a Christian perspective on libertarianism.

Regards,
Samantha

As a Libertarian who is neither Christian nor atheist/agnostic I wonder how your philosophy of libertarianism relates to personal conduct.  Christianity is one of many religions commanded to proselytize -- do you believe that proselytizing is exempt from non-aggression, does not violate non-aggression, or that formal evangelizing of others is unneccessary and that prpselytizing by example (walking the walk) is sufficient?  Or is it irrelevant because it is personal rather than political?

I am religious myself, and practice toleration as much as possible (Scientology, I admit, tends to cause me serious conflict and I would love to exchange discussion on this with a Libertarian Scientologist sometime), but I have always had the feeling that a person of another religion who is determined to help me find their path whether I want to or not is practicing aggression in their personal life and beliefs.

I have no intent to argue with anyone on this although religion is always a touchy topic.  I'm purely seeking clarification on this based on your personal opinion -- I'd like to know more.

Marakay

Marakay,

I guess I do not understand why you equate Proselytizing with aggression. Some may view my initial post as proselytizing, but I would be astounded if you thought it was an act of aggression. We are in the midst of a political campaign and I would hope that the party is promoting itself and it's candidates. Do Libertarians engage in aggression when promoting their ideas, party and candidates?

If you sneeze and I say God bless you, is that an act of aggression? If I say, "Merry Christmas" is that an act of aggression? If you are troubled and experience loss, and I say, "I'll be praying for you.", is that an act of aggression? If my opinion is asked or I am participating in a forum where the free exchange of ideas is promoted, and I say my beliefs are Christian based, is that an act of aggression? Is my Ichthus fish on the back of my vehicle an act of aggression? If someone does something I find offensive and I politely let them know, is this an act of aggression?

When the Jehovah witnesses knock on my door, it may at times be annoying, but I do not consider it an act of aggression. When the Baptists knocked on my door and asked if I wanted to send my kids to vacation Bible School at their church, I did not for a moment think that it was an act of aggression. The only thing that I can think of in the "proselytizing" category that embodies aggression is the actions of some folks at abortion clinics, I do not condone their activities.

If you want a better answer you'll have to come up with examples of Christian aggression, that you observe in the United States.
Peace and Love,
Samantha

Unfortunately, the word "proselytizing" includes acts of forced conversion.  "Evangelism" is nicer word to describe the kind of "proselytizing" that uses intellectual and emotional persuasion rather than force or threat of force.

It's the same as any other attempt at persuasion, whether it's a political discussion or trying to sell a used car.  As long as the person has the option of saying, "no thank you" and being left alone, it's harmless.

I'm a bit curious how the Libertarian Party defines "harassment," and whether or not there should be any legal recourse for people who believed they have been harassed.  Obviously, if someone says, "no thank you," and the persuader persists, then there is a problem.  Not necessarily a legal problem. 

I guess there is also the question of whether or not the person being "persuaded" has a reasonable means of avoiding their would-be persuader.  That's why most workplaces have policies about these things.  A person shouldn't have to quit their job in order to avoid their "persuader."  But this is handled by voluntary means by contract.  When you accept a job, you sign an agreement to abide by workplace policies like dress-codes, anti-harassment polcies, etc.  And you always have the option of NOT taking that job.

But in general, no one is harmed or threatened in any way by someone asking, "Do you know Jesus as your person Savior?" or "We are having special meetings at my church this week, would you like to come?"  A simple "no thank you" should be enough to do the trick.

I opened my Websters dictionary and there was nothing concerning force in the definition of proselytizing. What you describe may very well be annoying, and I suppose if escalated to the level of stalking would be harassment, but I don't think is aggression.

Most normal people are not going to go to church with someone who is that annoying. I have better things to do with my time than meet in a building with annoying people. I'm still curious what an example of aggression is, here in the US?

Peace and Love,
Samantha

I see many similarities with Christianity and libertarianism.  Christ never taught force, but taught through parables.  Teach men to fish, not give them fish.  Christ encourages philanthropy, not force.  Christ was offered the universe and turned it away.   I consider myself a Christian, go to church, and am far from perfect.   I feel the strongest point is we, both Christians and Libertarians, use persuasion and not force.   

I see someone who pushes someone too far to the point of a restraining order is force.  Where that line is drawn is for the victim to decide.

Last point, i see a shifting away from the voluntary actions of giving at church moving to the force of government to help the "poor."

This is def. not aggression.   You and if need be a jury will decide where the law is drawn.  I am in sales and have gone through many door stating, "no soliciting."  Never once was I jailed for defiant trespass.  I simply just left.  If i came back 3 more times and asked to leave, that is aggression.  Private property plays a role here too.

Samantha, would you like to do a write up on this for the LibPENN, our state newsletter?  (is this aggression  ;))

Email me at weneedjohngalt9@yahoo.com if interested.  Just 500-ish words. 

Think it over.   See volunteer forum for more details.

Spreading religious ideas in not coersion.  Free will implies the person who is listening to the beliefs of faith means the person can simply walk away or say, "no thank you" and simply end the conversatoin.  Of course the person expressing their beliefs may keep doing so, and that is simply their excercising their rights to free will and free speech.  For the record, I am Catholic.

Now, as for the idea that there is some type of morality in the libertarian philosophy of religion, here' my take on that:

If the government demands tax money and some of it goes to help the poor is that a moral act on the individual's part?  No, of course not, it's not a free will decision.  A moral decision is to take money out of your own pocket and donate it to charity.  Being forced to do something, or have something happen as an indirect consquence when your money or will is submitted to the government or another entity is not a moral act, as you are not choosing it.  A moral act is one you choose to do with out being forced to do so. 

I think that's a decent way of presenting how I feel about the issue, I'd be glad to expand on it though.

Certainly the promotion of Christianity has used force in the past, as is evidenced by things like the crusades and the inquisition. Even in the new world, the Spanish missionaries would baptize infants of the indigenous people then smash their brains out to keep them from reverting to the heathen ways. This was seen as giving the gift of eternal life.

In the United States, early governments would collect a tax to support the town church. There are still many in government who believe law is based in morality, therefore government should promote certain moral (often purportedly Christian) values. The problem is, of course, if you grant government this authority whose moral values will be promoted? Jesus the Nazorean? The Pope? Buddha? David Koresh? George Bush? Gene Robinson? Edward G. Robinson? Will Robinson (from Lost in Space)? Robinson Crusoe? etc. etc.

It is also a very good point that once it becomes a legal matter, it is no longer a moral choice. Free will is the key and is fundamental to individual Liberty. As we learned from Calvin, we have to believe in free will, we have no choice. Theocracies do a disservice to both the polity and the congregation. Mixing religion and government gives you two things; bad religion and bad government.

I do not view libertarianism as a world-view meant to encompass all of human existence. It is a way to determine the relationship between government, which has the authority of the force of law, and the individual, who has certain inalienable rights. I think the best way to determine that relationship is to maximize individual Liberty and focus government on its primary purpose of securing individual rights. This approach can be undertaken by anyone from any perspective, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Jain. OK, maybe Unitarians would have a problem, but only because it is cumbersome to say Unitarian Libertarian.

Clearly the founders of this nation did not expect government to operate in a vacuum. It was expected individuals would bring their own unique perspectives they received from their churches, schools, and communities to their elected offices. The problem we are running into today is that government is unduly influencing schools, communities, and even the moral realm that should be the dominion of churches and philosophers.
 
One of the problems we face is that the concept of separation of church and state is relatively new. Even the idea of atheism didn't really reach full flower until the 19th century. Rival church factions historically would refer to others as atheists, but only because their view of God was different, not because they did not believe in God. Until relatively recently, it was almost impossible to separate  the church from the state. European kings ruled by divine right and sometimes served as the head of the church. We inherited that system of law, but now need to tease out inappropriate mingling of religion and politics.

Mik Robertson

Interesting, but I would never use religion to sell political philosophy. It strikes me as similar to using oil to sell water. :)

With our government, you never really know....

Mik,

Have you ever studied John Witherspoon? He was a Presbyterian minister, President of Princeton seminary and member of the continental congress. He was also one of the writers of the Articles of Confederation. Our first government resembled in many aspects the governing apparatus of the Presbyterian church. Given the government today, I'll take the Christian designed version of our government.

Peace and Love,
Samantha

I too would prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, but this is what we have and the likelihood of it changing in the near future is not great. I used to think the Articles needed to be replaced, but lately I have come to think the Federalist Papers overstated the case for stronger central government. Jefferson's ideas were better than Hamilton's.

I'm not sure that Jesus favors the governing structure of the Presbyterian church over that of, say the Anglican church, so I'm not sure what makes the Articles Christian designed. Certainly those who framed our initial government brought their background with them, but I don't think the Articles were meant to establish a Christian theocracy. I suppose if God is a libertarian, God would prefer the Articles as well. That's one of the problems with a personal God, anyone can turn God into whatever political persuasion they want and everyone can be right.

I have found an interesting book to be one by Karen Armstrong called "A History of God", which looks at the God of Abraham through the ages. It covers Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Mik Robertson

Mik,

In my original post do I not make a strong argument that God is a Libertarian :)? I dare you to post a competent challenge. The Anglican church has a monarch, the Presbyterian church has a representative democracy.

Considering the uniqueness of our particular Republic on this planet do you believe that it would have been conceived in a non Christian Society? Out of the 55 members of the Philadelphia convention 9 had been students at Princeton, 5 of those students of John Witherspoon. Do you think that many, if not all, of the 55 men at that convention would consider our present state of government to be immoral?

Have you ever studied the Athenian democracy and it's demise in the Peloponnesian wars? They kept starting campaigns and then under cut the generals abandoning armies in the field. It is a study that will scare the heck out of you if you compare it to our present government. They lacked a moral compass.

Peace and Love,
Samantha

Samantha,

I did like the part about Abraham being an anarcho-capitalist. I can see he and Murray Rothbard together now, discussing private court systems, although I'm picturing both wearing bow ties. I am not quite sure, however, what you are driving at by saying nine folks at the Philadelphia convention were from Princeton. It seems your original post indicated the children of Abraham had a rather libertarian society in the time of the judges, which I believe was not a Christian society. Is the Catholic Church libertarian? I do believe it qualifies as Christian.

I agree you can use Christian principles to represent the underpinnings of libertarianism. My only point was you can do that with any religion that has a basis in "do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you", which is to say, essentially all major religions.

I also think it is not necessary to have a religious basis to understand the principles of libertarianism as it can be approached from a completely secular background as well. Thomas Jefferson, in "A Bill For Establishing Religious Freedom" (1779) asserted natural rights of mankind, which serve as an excellent basis for libertarianism.  I think this ability to address the relationship of the individual to society and government regardless of the cultural context is the beauty of libertarianism.

I would be extremely careful when saying God is any particular political persuasion. If you can make that case, someone else can make just as valid a case that God is some other political persuasion. Even if God is a libertarian, some of the things that have been done in God's name have not been libertarian.

The morals that come to actions of government have to come from individuals, for the government has no morality unto itself. It is not that our present government is immoral, but that those directing the actions of government do not have the proper perspective on the relationship of government to the individual that is the problem.

The form of government doesn't really matter. Democracies or republics can be quite oppressive and monarchies can be saintly depending on who is running the show. I guess my question is why do you think it is special that a republic was established in Philadelphia by Christians?

Mik Robertson
 

Our country is based on Judeo-Christain roots, undoubtedly.  I myself am Catholic.  I think it is important to recognize that this is the basis of our national morals and why there are so many people upset about the decay of morals in todays world.  You are right, Mik, the government cannot force people to be more moral.  That being said, this is the underlying fabric of our society.  I think you can see the effects of multi-culturalism in Britain in relation with recent decisions to allow forms of Sharia being pushed onto the British citizens and the ulitmate nanny state idea of reporting children as young as 6 for saying "yuk" for not liking "spicy" foods as potential racists.  It's unbelievable.  I think one of the very damning parts of how the nation is operating today is the idea that no one should be held repsonsible for their actions, there is always something that makes it not "their fault", people being "too busy" to care for their children, etc.  However, in terms of the Ten Commandments in Court Houses, it is easy to see why many court houses have them there, they are the underlying backbone of our judicial system as a whole.  The Founding Fathers each followed different variations of Christianity.  Absolutely there was still religious intolerance back then as there is now, but through each of the Founding Fathers writing you can see how important and heavily Christianity weighed on their ideas.  The idea of not endorsing a religion is not the same as Seperation of Church and State.  Judaism has many contributions to our society as well as does many other religions but our laws are all based on Christian ideas.  It is important that this be recognized.  It is unfathomable that our Founding Fathers would be happy with governments and ACLU lawyers fighting to make citizens take down nativity scenes and the like.  I am in no way advocationg a hybrid of religion and politics, but we must recognize this as a building block for the creation of our nation.  Phrases in the Delcartion and Constitution such as "Creator", and "Year of of Lord" were not objectionable and at minimum show elements of the effects that Christianity had on our Founding Fathers.

The underlying fabric of our society is individual rights, not religion or religious values.

> It is unfathomable that our Founding Fathers would be happy with governments and ACLU lawyers fighting to make citizens take down nativity scenes and the like.

Why? They are the ones who wrote the separation of church and state rule anyway.

> Phrases in the Delcartion and Constitution such as "Creator", and "Year of of Lord" were not objectionable and at minimum show elements of the effects that Christianity had on our Founding Fathers.

There were part of the common parlance at the time, just as we instead now say 'God', and have no greater significance.

I found this whole thing an interesting bit of intellectual pondering.  It started out as an effort to find Biblical or Christian ideas that match up with Libertarian ideas.  But then some folks (perhaps not in a very serious manner?) have actually tried to say that God is Libertarian?

The God of the Bible is CLEARLY an absolute monarch.  He is, of course, omnipotent and perfect in every way, so having such a monarch would be a GOOD thing.  But there's no question that He is the undisputed KING of the Universe.

Private citizens should be allowed to display whatever they want. Local governments should be able to authorize private citizens to place religious scenes on public property if the local population has no objections to it. If you are not from a town I don't necessarily see where you have a right to demand that people who pay taxes to a municipality must bow down to you and remove something you find objectionable. Maybe you just shouldn't visit that town.

Show me the phrasing seperation of church and state in the Constitution. It isn't there. That was a letter written by Thomas Jefferson that was trying to state that the government's ability to influence a church should be restricted. Basically he was reiterating that the government has no right to restrict speech in a church.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

It has been misinterpreted by many. But if you want to know what the founding fathers thought it meant... it was a protection for religion, not the state.

Obviously.  ;D


That's a big if. Since it's public property, handing over control of it - partial or whole - to private citizens to use for their own purposes is inappropriate.

And if you want to set that precedent, you have to accept that, in the name of equal rights or fair use or something, all inhabitants of the town will have to get equal time on the public property. So your trufer (9-11 thruthers) neighbors will be allowed to promote their cause, your UFO nuts will use that space to promote meetings with the 'greys' ... ad infinitum.

The real problem here is public property. Why do you want to use public property to communicate your (religious) message? Why not use just use private property? Much easier, fewer problems, more libertarian and it becomes a clear issue of free speech.


"Separation of church and state" is (accurate) shorthand for the actual clause in the first amendment of the bill of rights.

By that regard then you are in agreement that the seperation of Church and state is to keep government out of the church, not necessarily to state that the church is not allowed to influence government?

As far as public/private property is concerned... If an entire town was populated by truthers, who paid taxes to their local truther government, you feel it is inapropriate for them to use public property to express their message? They paid for it. If some local municipality wants to put up a cross on public property, and no one who is a taxpayer in that municipality is against this, then what is the issue? I don't see this as an issue. What right do you, as an outsider, have to tell these people that they are not allowed to run their local government as they see fit? Do you, as an outsider, know what is better for these people? Do you want to set regulations upon them because it offends you? I use religious symbols because they bring the most fire to the argument. But it could be as simple as an advertisement for Coca Cola on public property.

Let me ask you this, should I be able to speak freely or express my opinion freely on public property?

People get so wrapped up on these religious issues. Who cares if they put a cross on public property. Ever been to a national cemetary? I am amazed that we haven't had to go and get rid of all of those. It is ridiculous.

We can put up a sign about a fair in town that is being held at some park but don't you dare hang a sign up that says there is going to be a fair at a church.

All I am saying is that if you don't want it in your backyard, fine. But don't tell other people what is best for them. Then you start to sound like our federal government.

I am in agreement with the text of our first amendment. Congress may neither promote, nor restrain, the exercise of religion. That's an oversimplification but I consider it accurate enough for the current discussion.


YES (inappropriate).


Exactly. Let's explore this part a little further. WHY did they pay for it? Does the government require the use of this public property as part of their core duties? If not, why are people being forced to pay for it? Perhaps people should stop using the government to force others to pay for getting their messages out there.


Very little, if any. Of course, I don't claim any such right.


Perhaps we need less fire and more ice (cool/calm) in political debate in 2008. Frankly, I am sick to death of people injecting religion into politics. Religion is a private matter. Politics is a public matter.


Because everyone pays for public property but not everyone has the same religious views, or the same views on how religion and politics should or should not be mixed. And people don't like being forced to support something that they would not otherwise support.


I have done NO such thing.

Perhaps they chose to create a local government so that they could have a collective use of property. Perhaps the people of this collective got together and purchased property to have it for public use. They may have chosen to live in this manner. Isn't that how many towns and cities in this country first started? Is that wrong? It certainly does not affect you unless you choose to become a member of this community. There can be such a thing as public property without restriction.

Lets say that a community wants to create a new playground and recreation facility. They want to seek donations for the building of these facilities. In exchange for a certain donation level either a brick or a plaque is placed with the name of the group or individual donating the money. We cannot allow a church to donate money because we can't have a church advertised on this property. But, the American Legion is ok.

You completely disregard the ability for a community to make decisions as a collective in your argument. No one has stated anywhere that an individuals rights would be affected other than by their choosing. I see reasons for public land. I understand that public land can be a good thing for a community. I would hate to see a city with no public land other than that for government business. If people want to create public land for parks, free speech areas, or whatever, they should be allowed to do so. Your argument assumes that no one has a choice. I don't want no government. I want a limited government. And I want government at the local level, chosen by the people, to work with them.

Frankly, the only way you will have no public land is through anarchy.

IOW, people should be free to be choose slavery/no freedom/communism.

Without commenting on that concept, are you certain you want to advocate for that through the Libertarian Party?  ???


You dropped the context. What you describe is a private venture. This fact makes all the difference.

Yeah, I meant to put in there that the property was a public park...

As far as what is advocated within the bounds of the LP, I don't think that we are all planning on moving equal distances away from each other. It stands to reason that there will still be communities and small local governments. Generally a municipality is created when a group of people in the same geographic area come together and decide to write a charter. Ideally the form of governing chosen would be decided by the population that is incorporating. Unfortunately there are roadblocks to this process in reality because of many reasons, but that is a seperate debate.

Maybe I should restate the whole thing.

This scenario assumes that there is no federal funding.

If New York City decided to place a statue of Buddha in Central Park I wouldn't care. The citizen's of New York City should take the responsibility of dealing with that issue at their level. As an outsider I should not involve myself in their affairs. It really isn't any of my business. If sales tax pays for that statue then i won't buy anything from New York City if that was something that offended me.

I get tired of people making an issue of things that are really non-issues to the members of the community affected. The role of government at the local level should be defined by the citizenry at that level, not by some outside agency.

Your hypothetical case is highly tortured.

Why not simply sell the public park to a private entity which can develop it as it sees fit? Assuming the private entity wishes to attract members of the local community as customers (likely), and assuming the community is religious, churches will be ALL OVER that park. You get your freedom AND your religion. Sounds like a win-win for you. :)

Your case is like what they're doing in the Philly public schools. They turn over the running of certain public schools to private corporations. So it's still a public school, but a private corporation gets some kind of weird monopoly because people are still forced to financially support the school, and there is no ability for parents or kids to choose which school they want to go to. It's fascism, really.

What they really need to do is end the property tax, shutter the public school system, or sell what they can, and let the private sector - including families - make their own decisions about how kids will be educated, without any initiation of force being involved.

I don't belong to a church. So its not really my religion.

The real solution is to abolish the notion of "public property" altogether.  If the property had real human beings who owned it, then they can do what they want with it.  But then, I'm one of those wierdos who longs for the day when we can cancel government altogether due to lack of interest.

Well, it's impossible to abolish a notion (defined as idea or concept). And as long as we have a government that has a monopoly on the initiation of force, it will need to posses some property in order to carry out it's mission. That's inescapable.

An anarchist vs limited government debate would probably be a little too off-topic for this thread. ;D

Is there any evidence that God is an anarchist?

Mik Robertson

I'm pretty sure God isn't an anarchist.  It is extremely difficult to live your live in accordance with all the morals that we are supposed to uphold.  Only one person ever did.  God is all forgiving so long as you recognize and repent for the error of your ways because he truly does love us.  I think we forget that part about God in our lives and how we treat others.  I know I do.  The Golden Rule should guide us and we should respect others and care for them regardless of how they live their lives, seeking only to help them become better people, and pray to God they can do the same for us.  I don't know if that makes this a libertarian value issues though.  Drugs are not conductive toward loving oneself and others.  But then politics need not be infused with religion and vise versa.  Jesus was constantly around prostiutites, the destitute, and the outcasts of society and was scorned for it.  He was helping everyone he could, as should we.  I guess that makes a case for private charity more so than anything else.  The thing is, we need to have deep personal religious convictions and we shouldn't be afraid to let morals guide us in our decisions in order to make sure we are the doing the right thing, but we don't look to forceful make someone see us eye to eye in terms of religion.

Good question. Based on how little he participates in this world I would say he is undoubtedly an anarchist!  ;)

Leaving the Bible aside for a moment (which, as i stated above clearly shows God to be an absolute monarch) I'd say that God has an awful lot of laws in his universe.  All that physics stuff, etc.

klapton, may I respectfully request that you read some of Ayn Rand's philosophy? Not the fiction, but the philosophy.

Sorry but I just can't cope with a strict biblical or religious outlook on the universe.  ;D

God is whatever you imagine him to be.  Or perhaps nothing at all.  The title of the thread is "Biblical underpinnings of libertarianism" so I put my 2 cents in on what the Bible says about god.  As for Ayn Rand's ideas about god...  well, hers are just as good as anyone else's, and I care about hers about as much.

Perhaps I should bow out of this thread, simply because I'm not really taking it very seriously.

I believe one issue that really opens this up to interpretation is that God really doesn't spend very much time writing things down. Pretty much everything we know is what someone else has written about God. 

As far as I know, and I may be wrong, the only thing written with the finger of God was the commandments, and I think the number of them vary depending on the section of whose different writing one reads. The problem is Moses came down from the mountain, got upset and destroyed them because people were dancing around a golden calf or some such thing. So he had to go back up and ask God to re-write the commandments and oddly, the first one in the re-write was about having other Gods before the God of Abraham. Not that there couldn't be other Gods, just none before that One.

Of course there can be libertarian underpinnings taken from the Bible, just as there can be from Judaism, Hinduism, even Islam (see the Minaret of Freedom Institute http://www.minaret.org/). I don't mean to discourage any effort to identify such libertarian Biblical quotations. I think it is more important, however, that the founders of American government were able to separate, at least in theory, religion from government than it is that some if not all were Christian. When it comes to identifying the role of government, I prefer Locke and Jefferson to Paul and Moses.

Mik Robertson

Mik, I think you are right here, particularly when we note that Jefferson himself drafted one of the first religious toleration documents in America's early governance.  Our founding fathers, whatever their beliefs -- and those beliefs varied fairly widely -- definitely saw the legal underpinnings of this country as separate from the religious ones. 

One of the most notable things about the Bible is the ability everyone has to find "proof" for whatever theory they have.  God might be an absolute monarch, as in the psalms, or a libertarian, or a legislator.  In Judaism, the most devout find 613 absolute commandments by God in Hebrew scripture.  Although, admittedly, that's only an inconsequential fraction of the absolute laws we are required to follow in this country.

If we take the 613 commandments and compare that to current legislation, or even just to the number of mandates placed on the public school system in Pennsylvania, I believe this is very strong evidence that God is indeed a Libertarian.

OK Samantha, I'm on board! Now let's go after the evangelicals!

Mik

Those darn evangelicals are tougher to convert than I figured.

It seems some of them are Ron Paul supporters.

Mik