In American politics, there are three main ideologies that one might hear about: conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism. Each of the three has a different focus and general framework by which governments act. Conservatism is about preserving traditions, which, of course, have no justification for existing merely because they are traditions, social attachment to them, or consensus (and yet some fallaciously insist otherwise). Liberalism orients itself towards future progress, moving away from the status quo into something allegedly better. Libertarianism emphasizes minimal government activity limited to several ways of protecting the citizenry. And libertarianism is the only rationally and Biblically defensible political system of the three.
Libertarianism is not anarchism, as it is not against the existence of any government presence at all, just the existence of unnecessary or unjust laws. Nor is it a philosophy that teaches moral relativism, as its emphasis on personal freedom is not a denial of objective moral obligations--it is just a system that opposes government activity beyond the minimum. According to libertarianism, the only legitimate functions of governments are to preserve the natural rights of citizens (like the right to private property, for instance), justly punish criminal offenses, and protect the lives of citizens through an army that is not gratuitously oversized. Libertarians flee from unnecessary coercion and nationalism. Freedom of the individual is prized and elevated by them.
Libertarians and conservatives can agree on some positions--both tend to be supportive of private gun ownership--yet libertarians are generally more consistent about their "small government" ideas. Likewise, some libertarians and liberals might agree on certain positions--both might hold homosexual marriage as something that everyone has a right to partake in or not; both of them prioritize individual freedom (at least some forms of it). Whereas conservatives might oppose individual freedom in some cases as it conflicts with either their religious or traditional political stances, liberals might tend to agree more with libertarians in issues of personal liberty.
At this point, I need to clarify that libertarianism can have somewhat different trajectories, differing in degree, based on whether or not it is a religious or secular libertarianism. The secular version hinges on the nonaggression principle and holds that people should be permitted to do whatever they want as long as they do not harm others or the property of others, force only being used for defense or justice. Now, what people mean by "harm" might depend on what background worldview they have, and whether or not direct harm of a person or property is all that objectively should be criminalized depends on what is actually right and just, not what people prefer or feel. Christian libertarianism also holds that government force is only legitimate when used for defense or justice (meaning for legal punishments that are objectively just), yet what qualifies as a crime under this model would differ from what qualifies as a crime under the secular libertarianism.
Things that some libertarians endorse, like homosexual marriage or abortion, are objectively wrong on the Christian worldview, and some acts that non-Christian libertarians would generally not want criminalized, like adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22, Leviticus 20:10), are plainly criminal offenses according to Scripture. I do not want readers thinking that the libertarianism derived from the Bible is identical to that of nonreligious libertarians of the modern age. Christian libertarianism, which is the inevitable logical conclusion of Christian theonomy, does not hold up freedom as the ultimate good, but does grant absolute freedom of the individual outside of the prescriptions and restrictions of God's laws (Deuteronomy 4:2). Nonreligious libertarians have neither a philosophical basis for ethics and justice nor a sound epistemological system of discovering truths about these things, so, like the arguments of anyone else arguing from conscience or consensus, the arguments of nonreligious libertarians about morality can be tossed aside as illogical.
Libertarianism as an ideological framework for limited government is entirely Biblical, and is in fact the conclusion of any consistent theonomist. Neither conservatism nor liberalism, though supporters of both groups might claim Biblical grounds for their positions from time to time (whenever convenient), is itself a thoroughly rational or Biblical system. Some from either faction might be more rational or more Biblical than others from their ideological ranks, but only libertarians can accurately claim that the model of government they advance fits with either reason or the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment