Libertarianism and Morality

This article is dedicated to a dear friend of mine. Hope this teaches you something, ya dope.

 

I AM a libertarian, or – more precisely – an anarcho-capitalist with Rothbardian and Hoppean undertones. While I at first identified as some form of a conservative, I now realize I wasn’t an orthodox conservative, and I began to realize this even before I formally converted to libertarianism when I read Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind and learned about Edmund Burke (the father of conservatism) and couldn’t agree with some fundamentals of conservatism.

However, belonging to such a fringe ideology as anarcho-capitalism - part of the broader fringe ideology of anarchism - life is sort of difficult. People like capitalism, people like less government, but they can’t wrap their minds around the supremacy of the former and the dissolution of the latter. My social circle happens to consist of many of those people, and they tend to identify as minarchists (see Block 2011) or as the type of pseudo-conservative I was before my conversion (more so “realization”). They have their objections and arguments as to why they cannot or will not step over the threshold into total anti-statism. These include the usual arsenal of statist appeals, such as the “natural monopoly” of the State on policing and roads (see DiLorenzo 1996), a Hobbesian/Lockean appeal to an insufferable “state of Nature” (see Suits 1977), or something else.

Now, I’d love to respond to these objections, and I’d love to discuss anarchism/political theory with people. However, my present desire is to address a particular anti-anti-statist argument, and so I must neglect those other discussions. However, I am by far the only or most eminent defender of anarcho-capitalism out there, and I leave the works of Robert Murphy, Roderick Long, John Hasnas, among others, for you to consider.

The particular jab taken at anarcho-capitalist ideology I want to focus on derives from the Christian faction of my social circle. Many of them are part of the aforementioned minarchist category, since they see how the State has assailed Christianity in recent history, or they are conservatives, since they believe the best path is a strict Christian social order. Their main concern with anarchism derives from the main concern of all Christians, which is the goodness and betterment of mankind. They fear that, due to its blasé and hands-off values, libertarianism equals libertinism (see Block 2010). Not wanting to see men fall into sinful damnation, they reject a laissez-faire attitude. 

However, the issue with this moral objection to anarchism should be immediately obvious. Namely, what does the State have to do with the Church’s salvific mission? 

The concern of these Christian statists is authentic. The Church is tasked with spreading piety, and it is bad for the Church to be inhibited. Christ was sent to save the World (John 3:16), and He sent the Church to do saving work (Matt. 28:18-20). Christians are to build each other up (Eph. 4:12; 1 Cor. 14:12), and to build up/heal the sinful lost (Matt. 28:18-20; Gal. 6:1-2). So, yes, the moral obligation of the Christian is real and paramount. But, once more, how does the State become involved?

Christian evangelists, whose very title means (in Greek) “(the) messenger(s) of the good news”, have never been nor are helped by the State. The spread of Christianity has always been conducted by missionaries/evangelists backed by their church or a group, such as with the Methodists and Baptists, who converted millions. Once more I ask what role does the State play in any of this, especially when the New Testament makes a clear distinction between the Christian’s obligation to God and to the State (Mark 12:17)?

Furthermore, whenever the State does involve itself with the Church it is almost certainly inhibitive to orthopraxy (i.e., rightful conduct). For example, in modern times we have seen the woke State inhibit Christianity’s fight against sins such as sodomy and infanticide. The rise of the State-Church of Roman Catholicism in the 4^th century AD marks the point of divergence between peaceful missionaries often persecuted and frolicking crusaders. It was only when Christianity gained political power that it was corrupted and became a militaristic force. This does not mean that Christianity is inherently violent, it means - as anarchists have acknowledged for as long as we’ve ranted - that political authority is.

Another critical issue with the Christian moral-statist is that they must answer what right the State/Church has to coerce morality. That a moralistic Christian nation would become coercive, one must ask what would happen to the sinner that refuses to act morally under the omnipresent Church-State. If they are to be allowed to sin, what difference would there be to how things work today, wherein the State does not condemn sin, but only the Church? We would simply be turning back the clock to early America, where vices like prostitution were legal (see Gilfoyle 1987) but were nonetheless heavily condemned by the fervently Christian culture.

If the sinner was not allowed to sin - i.e., if the arrangement were coercive - then we would find ourselves in a situation similar to Christian-backed Prohibition, which was a failure.

Ultimately, of course, the New Testament provides no basis for coercive Christianity. The Apostles won converts through hardship, and the three centuries of Christianity before Nicea saw the Church spread in spite of hardship and - at times - persecution. If God wanted us to force people to accept Him, why does the Bible make such a big deal about free will (see Geisler 2010 and Craig 2000), and why does sin exist to begin with? If God wants Christians to coerce sinners into piety, why does He explicitly condemn coercive means (Matt. 26:52; 1 Cor. 13:4-5)? This, therefore, takes us back to the example of an uncoercive Christian State, which we concluded was no different from the status quo.

Even though the Christian statist’s position has been weakened, it has not been defeated, and this is because not all points of their objection have been handled. What remains is to explain the validity of the libertarian alternative. How can libertarianism promote general morality?

The answer is obvious: the same way the evangelists of Christ have, through persuasion. Christianity was rarely spread by force, and whenever it has the perpetrator has usually been its politicized antithesis. All other things being equal, Christianity won millions through the sheer power of the Gospel. Under anarchism, Christianity would spread the same way it has historically, by people voluntarily giving it an ear and voluntarily being won over, such as the Jews who heard Peter (Acts 2) or the pagans fascinated by Paul (Acts 17).

Libertarianism would also promote morality because of the objective values at its core, namely property rights. Because of property rights libertarians condemn theft, murder, kidnapping, rape, slavery, and other things that Christians condemn, too. Libertarianism is not an amoral, immoral, or relativist ideology, and instead it has clear moral judgments and objective values. What it cannot do, however, is condemn actions that do not violate property rights, such as voluntary interpersonal actions (homosexuality, for one).

Another way libertarianism would promote morality is by giving people the right to police morality on their private property. In the ideal anarchic society, Christianity would be a voluntary association that people could enter (or exit), and it would have covenant communities it would be sovereign over—churches/congregations. Every church and Christian community would be governed by the New Testament, which gives permission for churches to discipline members that have turned to sin (Matt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor. 5:1-5). The Apostle Paul says in Second Corinthians, “What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?” (6:15) The Old Testament passages he quotes afterwards are very enlightening:

“‘I will live in them and will walk about among them, and I will be their God and they will be My people.’ Therefore ‘come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord, ‘and do not touch what is unclean, and I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to Me,’ says the all-powerful Lord.” (6:16-18)

The sacred body of Christ has no room for the sinner, particularly the unrepentant sinner. Pearls to swine, as it is put elsewhere (Matt. 7:6). Thus, it follows that Christian communities could rid themselves of immorality, because - per libertarian theory - trespassing or violation of a contractual obligation can be disciplined (Hoppe 2001, pp. 213-218).

This is also why the State is fundamentally inconsistent with the Church. Christian statists tend to ignore the “render to God the things that are God’s” part of Mark 12:17. Are we to render to God only the things the State tells us we can, or do we follow the Apostles’ example and obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)? By abolishing the State, the Church is freed to “not be conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2), and will not have to fear the political violence of nations that prohibit its message and works (á la Canada or China).

While this means that sodomites will be free to create their own New Sodom, and prostitution will be permitted, did the original Sodom stop God or did Christ not save harlots? Even if in a certain period of time the Church is not winning, Christians have some very important intel on our side: we will ultimately win (as prophesied by Revelation). In the meantime, we do what we’ve done for centuries: win hearts by the millions.

In parting, I leave you with Christ’s words to the Pharisees, a legalistic bunch who wished to impose [a false] Godly morality on the powerless people below them:

“And the Lord said to him, ‘Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not He Who made the outside make the inside also? But give as alms those things that are within, and behold, everything is clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect  justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without knowing it.’” (Luke 11:39-44)

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Block, Walter E., “Libertarianism and Libertinism” in Building Blocks for Liberty: Critical Essays by Walter Block, eds. Iulian Tãnase and Bogdan Glãvan (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010), pp. 303-315.
• “Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapprochement Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 22 (Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2011): 741-770.
• Craig, William L., The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000).
• DiLorenzo, Thomas J., “The Myth of Natural Monopoly,” The Review of Austrian Economics 9:2 (Springer, 1996): 43-58.
• Geisler, Norman L., Chosen But Free: A Balanced View Of God’s Sovereignty And Free Will (3rd ed.; Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2010).
• Gilfoyle, Timothy J., “The Urban Geography of Commercial Sex: Prostitution in New York City, 1790-1860,” Journal of Urban History 13:4 (Sage Publications, 1987): 371-393.
• Hoppe, Hans-Herman, Democracy: The God That Failed (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2001).
• Suits, David B., “On Locke’s Argument for Government,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 1:3 (Pergamon Press, 1977): 195-203.