From: John
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 5:32 PM
To: Thomas
Subject: Why is Libertarianism a Corrupting Influence on Society?
Summary:
– Libertarians advocate for minimal government intervention in economic and social matters, prioritizing individual freedom and market-based solutions.
– Critics argue some regulation is needed to address externalities, exploitation, inequality, and other issues free markets cannot adequately solve.
– A purely libertarian state with no oversight remains hypothetical, and government emerges due to demands for collective security, justice, and services.
– Private behavior shapes public deportment, necessitating some influence to mediate passions and protect the vulnerable from predators.
– God instituted government and revealed standards for sexuality, drug use, etc. contradicting libertarian desires for unrestrained individual choice.
– When libertarian philosophy promotes celebration of ungodly behavior, and mixes with regulatory powers, it produces enforcement of ungodliness counter to Christian principles.
– Both libertarianism and authoritarian state models pose concerns if taken to extremes without checks, given corrupt tendencies of power and imperfect nature of humanity.
– Overall this section analyzed challenges reconciling ideals with realities of an imperfect world, weighing tensions between individual sovereignty and common welfare.
John: Also, I would think that Christians would consider an evil authoritarian state to be far more of an enemy than libertarianism. An evil state can kill and punish. A libertarian state is merely valueless. Nobody can interfere with anyone else, so Christians have the benefit of living, interacting, and trading amongst only the other most honorable people and not being forced to deal with the “unwashed”. It’s not great, but it far exceeds the survivability of an evil authoritarian state. There may not be “private behavior” but at least the owners of property can restrict who can enter it. The idea and practice of “public property” is a lost cause.
Thomas: You have covered the waterfront on the debate between authoritarianism/communalism and libertarianism. Before I can answer your question about the threat of libertarianism, I would like to list and give context to some of the domains of life relevant to libertarianism and government.
- Private/Sovereign vs. Public/Communal property: The libertarian assumption is that it is possible for someone to own and take responsibility for every parcel of land, including roads, government buildings, and national parks. This is logically possible, but difficult. But “public property” is not the main issue in the libertarian-authoritarian-debate we are now addressing, even though it is important.
- Justice: people have a sense that their person and property have boundaries and that people should follow proper protocols with respect to them. People have a visceral/instinctive demand for protecting their person and property. Either government or private force may do this protection, but it must be done. When someone violates these boundaries, people demand that government administer protection and justice, otherwise they will apply vigilante or private force. Justice and protection are simply specializations, and it can be delegated or retained as a DIY skill/duty – but either way, the job will be done.
- Regulation: people must decide whether products and practices/services are safe and effective. Consumers can do their own research, or government can investigate/supervise and consumers can trust. Again, another delegated or retained skill/duty.
- Passion: People are drawn to wealth, pleasure/sex, and power/fame, and repelled by pain. These passions/emotions are the strongest drives of men, and the part of human nature that requires/demands justice, property, protection, and safety. Everyone wants their piece of the pie. Many want too big a piece and they infringe on others. The negotiation and enforcement of proper sharing is the responsibility of the individual to insure, but the individual may delegate this responsibility to the government in the case of disputes. Regardless of where by individual negotiation, private negotiation agencies, or government, the adjudication must be done. Living and sharing in proper proportion is a fruit of the spirit, and is easiest/most natural/habitual/ingrained in the culture of a nation/environment where there is exaltation of mutual love for self, others, and God’s law.
- Godliness: some actions please God and He blesses the people who follow His way, and vice versa. The natural consequences of unGodly action (i.e. the unseen hand of God working in nature and human nature, perhaps by turning His back and giving authorization to demons to influence and possess) produce slavery in the wake of unGodly acts. The spirits present when God’s spirit departs is one of bondage, lust, pride, power, and control. The authoritarian state, when not regulated by the presence of the Spirit of God results in slavery.
In the hypothetical scenario, where the Christian community evaluates the libertarian state next to the authoritarian state, the authoritarian state appears more restrictive, corrupt, and moving toward totalitarianism. But we cannot make such a pure comparison in reality, since the pure libertarian, small government regulatory state, and individuals only sinning inside their private 4 walls, does not exist.
Definition of Laissez-Faire:
The libertarian philosophy of “laissez-faire” which is a French term that translates to “let it be” or “let it do” is an economic and political doctrine that advocates for minimal government intervention in economic affairs, emphasizing free markets and limited regulation. While laissez-faire is often associated with economics, but it can also apply to other areas, such as politics, where it advocates for minimal government involvement in social and political matters.
Laissez-faire economics promotes the belief that a free market, operating without significant government interference, is the most efficient and productive system for allocating resources, setting prices, and promoting economic growth. According to this doctrine, individuals and businesses should have the freedom to pursue their economic interests without excessive government control or regulation.
Proponents of laissez-faire argue that it allows for greater individual freedom, encourages innovation, and leads to optimal outcomes through market competition. These proponents contend that government intervention, such as price controls or regulations, can hinder economic efficiency and distort market mechanisms.
Critics assert that laissez-faire policies can lead to economic inequality, exploitation, and market failures. They argue that certain government regulations and interventions are necessary to protect consumers, ensure fair competition, and address externalities.
Thomas: Justice/law and order is the one product that government will be demanded to deliver if private justice is not allowed. Anarcho-Capitalists have offered a private/market-based solution to the corruption and authoritarianism of government regulation/justice, but the implementation of such a system remains hypothetical, so we cannot compare a real example of its implementation. The cumbersomeness of the system/overlapping of boundaries of authority makes it seem unlikely that it will ever be realized and widely duplicated.
Men will always ask for libertine self-choice and unregulated sexuality. Men rightfully ask for access to health interventions, and food and medicine of their choice. Libertarians ask that men have the right to die, which is a more problematic/debatable right of men, as our bodies are the property of God. Likewise, the right to self-administer intoxicants as a God-given right is questionable, given the Biblical admonitions against “Pharmakia,” the use of drugs as witchcraft.
The libertarian wants small government, the anarcho-capitalist wants no government other than that which is privately contracted by market mechanisms. Given the abuse that government usually delivers, such a desire is reasonable, but government is a God-authorized institution, as we see in Romans 13. It will always exist because men ask the group to intervene on their behalf to administer justice in crime and business. Without government, men will administer vigilante justice by individual or group action. Men will take on the job of legislators and enforcers of justice if the government does not provide it.
Civilized/specialized/division-of-labor societies have given special privilege and rights to the governments to make and enforce law. The Bible reveals God has restricted drug use, death, and sex to meet certain criteria. Therefore, since God has designated government as its agent, these areas are also areas within the purview of government regulation.
But the libertarian wants to remove government’s authority/jurisdiction from judgment in these areas and put them in the hands of each individual’s judgment.
But, since government exists, always will exist, and usually exceeds its proper boundaries, if it adopts the Libertarian stand of sexual freedom, it will pervert (and has perverted) the libertarian stand for non-regulation of sex, to the enforced non-criticism of unGodly sexuality. At the urging of the libertarians (of course, not the sole promotors/advocates, but nevertheless giving im-moral support for unGodliness), the government has become the agent of enforcement of non-compliance with Godly sexual standards.
Thus, at the urging/protest of libertarians, the Godly standards of sexuality are unenforced, or enforced wrongly, resulting in a toxic mixture of libertarianism philosophy and authoritarianism mandating the acceptance/non-criticism of unGodly sexuality. It is this mixture of libertarianism and the regulatory state which produces government-enforced unGodliness. The results will be apocalyptic.
The libertarian dreams of a world where private and consensual sexuality is free from government interference/regulation. But that dream is unrealistic. The forces of animal lusts of pride, wealth, and power are too strong for every individual to control. The result is the need for government to apply the tangible pressure of the State to enforce Godliness when men do not self-apply Godly standards to regulate their passions by personal will/discretion/control. Thus, the combination of standardless/valueless/libertarian unregulated sexuality, plus the inevitable/unavoidable existence of government, produce the accidental, but possibly predictable, toxic mixture of the regulatory state and libertarianism.
Laissez-faire libertarianism wants people to accept sin as a private/unregulated issue. But even such a social standard corrodes the national soul. Both the corrupt authoritarian state and the valueless libertarian state will destroy the nation, eventually, in their own ways. If we could isolate the valueless libertarian state, it would seem obviously/clearly/objectively and subjectively superior to the corrupt authoritarian state. However, we cannot implement the valueless libertarian state with its ideal micro-government. Perhaps if it could be implemented, and people could isolate their unGodly sexuality into private spaces, it would be a benign government-society combination. That is the idealized Valhalla of governmental non-interference dream of the libertarian. But I doubt it would result in a stable utopia, given that private behavior affects public demeanor. There will be some effect external to the private acts which will pollute the public felicity. The apocalyptic decay associated with government mandating the celebration/acceptance/embrace of unGodly sexuality would not appear if there was no government. There would be decay, because all unGodliness will degrade society.
Because of the unGodliness of men, we live in a world where government expands itself into regulating every threat. Thus, the combination of libertarianism and the regulatory state is always possible, and in our current world, we see it has already manifested. The problem is that the forces driving humanity, the animal hungers innate to man, make it necessary for men to organize to protect themselves from the scavengers and predators. We must protect ourselves from the wolves who prefer to prey on the helpless instead of working to till their own fields. Men with ambition overtake that good and benign purpose of government, and when the regulatory state mixes DNA with the libertarian call for unregulated sexuality, we see the demon spawn of enforced celebration of unGodly sexuality. Hence, the reason that Christians view libertarianism with suspicion and disdain.