Joe Carter is a nice guy, and a long-time internet-friend, so I will address his question on what might make for a Christian libertarian, where "Christian" is seriously meant and "libertarian" isn't just another way of saying "conservative."
To begin: a libertarian or classical liberal is going to be concerned with what are called "threats to liberty"--anything that might impinge on someone's ability to do what they want. Since Christians do have a moral code which places some limitations on the ability to do whatever one wants, there might seem to be an obvious contradiction here. But there need not be.
Threats to liberty come from one of two sources: government ("coercion") and non-governmental social organizations ("domination"). Protestants with a sense of history should be very much on board the non-domination project, whether that's the domination of the Catholic Church against rival forms of Christianity, or something that first pricked the consciences of evangelical Protestants like the slave trade. Even if one is not particularly concerned about either of those in the present day, it doesn't require much imagination to see how similar issues might pose a problem. As for coercion, I presume anyone who objects to limitations on religious liberty can see how that will be an issue.
At this point I think the minimum bar for libertarianism has been cleared. One may skew out of libertarianism and into liberalism or conservatism by deciding that in certain instances domination or coercion may be justified if the goods in question are important enough; without leaving the camp of classical liberalism broadly considered one might lean left or right (it's a big tent).
What of that moral code? I think the answer here has to be something like: the process of change in the world, if it's going to happen at all, is the long-term mission of the church through the action of individuals, whose purpose is to work towards the eventual changing of the world, but freely, and primarily on the individual level. The state is such a blunt force that its use has to be reserved only for cases that won't ever change otherwise.
This is not a camp I'm entirely within, myself. But I know people who are in it and are seriously committed to both libertarianism and Christianity, and I do hope they succeed.
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
1 comment:
Thanks, Nick. I appreciate you taking the time to address the issue. I think you make a good start but I’m still unclear on how the version of libertarianism you present differs from conservatism. I think we need a test that screens out the consistent libertarians from those that are merely libertarian-leaning. To that end, I want to test out my own test and get some input on whether it holds up.
I call it “The Nudist Test”: Roger is committed Christian, ardent libertarian, and unapologetic nudist. Since the laws about wearing clothes in public spaces impinges on his ability to do what he wants (i.e., be naked 24/7), he considers them to be a “threat to liberty.”
He respects the right of private businesses to enforce a “clothes-only” policy at their establishments, but he thinks that government agencies (such as the DMV) should be clothing-optional. Also, since being naked doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle, he doesn’t understand why there are laws against public nudity.
My contention is that all true libertarians would agree with Roger that there should be no laws against public nudity. I also contend that very few people who call themselves libertarian would be willing to live by such a standard. While they might claim to be fine with it, I suspect that if Roger came to pick up his child from school (where their child attends also) wearing nothing but his birthday suit, they might have second thoughts about coercing people to wear clothes.
For those Christian libertarians who would be fine with not forcing people to wear clothes in public, I would be interested in hearing how they square this with their faith. I'd also be curious to hear why they think that so few Christian in the history of the world would agree with them on this point.
Post a Comment