Libertarianism v Christianity

In the light of the recent Occupy movement protests (many members of which quote or otherwise use Jesus as their hero and role-model in fighting the greedy bankers) and prominent characters from the Christian world calling for more regulation of the financial industry (Archbishop of Canterbury) or the establishment of more powerful global economic institutions (The Holy See), one does start to ponder the question whether there is a political ideology (or economic order) that is intrinsically (anti-)Christian that all believers should embrace? True, many American Christians would automatically name Conservatism, while a substantial number of more liberal European followers of Christ would reject it because of its “lack of compassion and solidarity.” What about Libertarianism then? Is this radical free-market (often even anarchist) philosophy introduction of which would see the elimination of the Welfare State and public education, or legalization of hard drugs (to name a few) completely at odds with Christianity? Or could these two be reconciled? I will try to show that, yes, they can.

The centerpiece, the very essence of Libertarian philosophy, is the principle of self-ownership and the consequent concept of natural rights (natural = applicable at any point in history and anywhere around the globe); the only right I can exercise in the state of nature (think Adam and Eve after being expelled from Eden) is the right of self-ownership, the right to my own body to do with it whatever I please (in usual human-rights terms, rights to life and liberty). Furthermore, if I own my own body, I have to also own the product of any part of my body - the fruits of my labor (right to private property). Since these rights are inalienable, the only role a government (if we are of course to have a government) should have is to protect these rights, i.e. leave people alone so long as they do not harm or enslave others, or steal.

The core of Christian teaching is the realization that men are sinful, fallible creatures that need the sacrifice of Christ to have their sins forgiven - they cannot do this alone; and any attempt to live your life solely on your own will inevitably lead to disasters, disappointments and death. But if this is true, how can a Christian advocate complete liberty when they realize people will inevitably fail to make the right choices and end up hurting themselves and others around them? Do we not need some sort of authority to guide us, to steer us into the right direction?

Yes, we need authority, we need guidance, we need help to lead our lives in a way that glorifies God and puts others before ourselves. But, as the whole point of following Christ is the conscious and voluntary decision to do so, this authority must also be voluntary. Hence this authority cannot be no one but Christ and God’s Word, not a secular, man-made government that uses force and violence to make us conform to certain moral standards of the society.

But, then again, if we know what one ought to do from the Bible, and we know it is good and beneficial to follow it, shouldn’t we try to enshrine these principles into the law so that we would create a moral and just society? Is it not our responsibility?

No. The point of Christianity and the point of evangelism is to demonstrate to others the love of Christ through our actions, and not to use force and/or the sheer number of Christians (especially) in the West to make others follow the Decalogue. That is not Christianity, that’s legalistic religion. A religion without a relationship will never deliver the fruits we would hope it to deliver, and so any attempt to impose Christian morals upon a certain society could quite easily backfire by the spread of either hypocrisy or outright resistance and rejection of Christianity (or both).

Ok, but what about all the poor and needy and suffering in the world? Should we not try to help them, share our wealth with them? Wouldn’t they just die on the street in a “Libertarian Utopia” because there would be no one to help them for free?

Yes, yes and no. Helping the poor and the oppressed is one of the most recurring themes in the Scriptures:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22, 37-40, NIV)

But nowhere does it say “Extract money from thy wealthy neighbor and give this money to thy neighbor in need.” Libertarians as one of very few people realize that taxation is outright theft and violation of your natural rights as it implies that the government owns you and decides what percentage of your income you can keep; and that, as Bastiat remarked, “government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.” Israel was warned when they demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8, 10-18 about all the dangers of an oppressive government, but they did not listen; we should aspire to do better than that.

Moreover, there are other rather important commandments that this call for a redistributive government violates. Firstly, we obviously have “You shall not steal”, regardless of the motives and the use of the stolen goods (robbing a grocery store in order to feed the homeless will not prevent from being accused of theft, and yet the government steals on this pretense on a daily basis and is never brought into account). But secondly, there is also “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house” - if we believe that we have a right to some material goods just because others have it but we cannot afford it is not a call for social justice, but a manifestation of envy and greed (yes, greed, the very same greed OWS protests against). “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat,” remember?

Finally, when we see people suffering, are we to actually do something to help them or just call on the government to do something about it? Do we not evade our responsibilities by saying that “I pay my taxes, why should give any more to the needy - the government will take care of it”? It was H D Thoreau that recognized long ago that simply petitioning the government to eradicate any injustice is in effect doing nothing to fight this injustice. And (not that long ago) it was John Paul II who said that the Welfare State can never address the problems of the people as effectively as “by people who are closest to them who act as neighbors to those in need,” and that by relying too much on the State, we do nothing ourselves to help the needy.

The last point we should probably address is the problem of what is usually called the “civil liberties.” How can Christians support an ideology that would let people take drugs or even commit suicide? Will this not eventually destroy the society? One, we must realize that the secular law is not (or should not be) a moral code - that which is legal does not have to be moral (and, sadly, often also vice versa). When we teach people, and especially the youth, that for instance doing drugs (or drinking alcohol or smoking, or whatnot) is wrong because it is illegal, we are teaching them wrongly. These acts are not wrong because they are illegal, but because they harm our bodies and effectively enslave us due to their habit-forming nature. Second, the fact that only a tiny fraction of the population does (hard) drugs is not because they are illegal, but because people realize that taking heroine might not be the best thing to do. Yes, people may do stupid things sometimes (actually, rather often), but we are not that dumb. And third, by advocating the liberty to pursue a drug-infested lifestyle, libertarians are simply fighting for the unrestricted right to pursue any lifestyle of choice, which does not include only self-destroying lifestyles full of vices, but (as Ron Paul often reminds conservative Christians in the US) also your decision to follow Christ and exercise your religious beliefs wherever you may choose to do so.

In conclusion, although I could not have by any chance touch upon every possible issue Christians may have with Libertarianism, I believe I have shown that the major points of clash can be reconciled, and that Libertarianism is not anti-Christian or immoral or what have you. For in order to give your life to Christ, you first have to own it.