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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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