Why Reading the Bible Makes Me More Libertarian

Last week, a friend of mine posted an article on Facebook entitled, "10 Reasons Why Reading the Bible Makes Us More Progressive." To be frank, I was infuriated upon reading this article at its misuse of scripture to provide a rationale for a political viewpoint. I thought it worthwhile to respond to this article here.

The author begins by explaining how he became a Christian progressive because he decided to accept the whole Bible. I personally believe that if you are reading the Bible to determine your political viewpoints, you're probably doing something wrong. Nevertheless, I would like to go point by point to show the logical inconsistencies and Bible verses taken out of context within this article.

1. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize I don't have it all together."
Our friendly author goes on to explain here that when he realizes how little he knows, and how sinful he truly is, he is a lot less likely to pass judgment onto others. This interpretation of scripture he gives here is worthy. We shouldn't condemn people because they have sin in their lives. That's God's job and place. But this has nothing to do with government or the left-right spectrum. Apparently, he is assuming here that to live on the right of the spectrum is to pass judgment on anything and everything, but that is an absurd and offensive assumption. Judging other people has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

2. "The more I read my Bible, the more I develop humility."
This point is really just a reiteration of his first point, so I will reiterate my earlier response. Yes, we as Christians need to be humble and not view others' sins as worse than our own. The great apostle Paul did himself say the he was the chief of sinners, showing us an excellent example in humility, but this has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

3. "The more I read my Bible, the more I discover that justice for the poor and oppressed is at the heart of it."
Here our author again makes a spiritual point I can definitely agree with. He concludes this point by saying, "God wants us to care for, serve, and love these people." That's exactly it right there. God wants US to care for, serve, and love these people, but quite frankly our responsibility to care for the people has nothing to do with the government, and by extension, has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

4. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize “redistribution of wealth” wasn’t Obama’s idea– it was God’s."
Now we're getting into some more interesting material. The author insists that the Israelites had a system of redistribution of wealth through institutions such as the year of Jubilee, restrictions on gleaning your garden and other similar things. Although the Israelites were clearly told to care for the poor, it was a cultural decision not a governmental one. Each individual had a responsibility to help the poor, just as we each have a responsibility to help the poor today. No conservatives or libertarians have any problems with private redistribution of wealth as is being discussed here. No, we have a problem with government mandated redistribution, which is not discussed within these cultural norms. Indeed, these cultural norms and the responsibility to help the poor have nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

5. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that the early Christians actually practiced this re-distribution of wealth." 
Here our author opines,

"They rejected individual ownership, gave their wealth to leadership who in turn, redistributed it according to need... While this still seems too radical for me, it moves me in a right to left trajectory as I read it."

The fact that he refuses to accept this idea fully while accusing conservatives of ignoring parts of the Bible is interesting, to say the least.

I can only assume that he is getting this idea of rejecting property from Acts 4-5. Indeed it is stated in Acts 4 that several members of the church did sell their possessions and give the money to the Apostles to redistribute. However, there is no indication that this was common among all churches, or if this was just a custom at Antioch. It is also unclear whether the Apostles asked for the money from selling properties in the first place. In response, a Christian progressive loves to point out that Ananias and Sapphira were punished for keeping back some of the money they received from selling their property, but examining what the Apostles actually told them about their misdeeds, we see an entirely different story. In Acts 5:3-4, the Bible proclaims,

"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."

Not only does this passage show that the Lord was punishing them for their lying, not their refusal to fully participate in redistribution, but it also demonstrates that the Apostles in the early church did not "Reject individual ownership." It says that while it remained, and after is was sold, it was in "Thine own power."

Of course, I haven't even mentioned that even if this notion is true (as we have seen, it's not), we would be dealing with private redistribution of wealth, which no conservative or libertarian have any qualms with. Thus, his entire thesis on this point has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

6. "The more I read my Bible the more I realize Jesus taught we need to pay our taxes."
Finally, something the Bible actually says about government! Our friendly author would like to point out that it was the government's job and our private job to administer charity. To prove this, he cites another example where Jesus tells someone to sells their goods and give it to the poor, and also that Jesus tells us to pay our taxes. The former I have no qualms with as it is private redistribution. The latter however is guilty of the non sequitur fallacy. Non sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow." In this case, just because we must pay taxes to the federal government, it does not follow that we must support use of that taxation as government charity. Indeed, I can't think of a way in which those two can be linked together meaningfully. Thus, the fact that the Bible tells us to pay taxes has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

7. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that God wants us to be people who are quick to show mercy."
He here once again assumes with no basis that progressivism is the ONLY system centered on the belief of radical mercy. This is another offensive and baseless assumption. Essentially, how merciful you are, and whether you support radical mercy in political areas has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

8. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that God cares how we treat immigrants."
I agree wholeheartedly with everything he said (and even implies) here. I personally believe that our immigration standards should be much less restrictive. Is this a progressive belief? I guess this author thinks so, but I always thought of it as a libertarian belief. Oh well, I suppose even a broken clock (progressives) can be right twice! Regardless, your beliefs about immigration are hardly the most important thing in determining whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

9. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that God will hold us accountable for how we care for the environment."
We are now back to the issue of what God expects from people, and not what God expects from the government. I agree that as Christians we are called to be good stewards of the earth, but as this has nothing to do with government, it has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.

10. "The more I read my Bible, the more I realize that God isn’t judging us by whether or not we get all of our doctrine right– he’s judging us by whether or not we get the “love one another” part right."
Our author would like to point out the following,

"The more I read the Bible the more I realize that God is less concerned with us all sharing the same doctrine but is heavily concerned with whether or not we love each other. In fact, Jesus said this would be the calling card of his followers, and how others would realize we’re actually following Jesus– that we love one another. The more I read my Bible, the more I want to defer my position or preference and instead side with what is in the best interest of others– because that’s the loving thing to do."

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Christians should be concerned with loving one another, and should side in all things with what is in the best interest of others. However, I disagree with the once again offensive assumption here that those who do not subscribe to progressivism clearly don't have the best interest of others in mind. I am a libertarian because I believe that libertarianism best upholds the principle of "loving one another." That principle itself however has nothing to do with whether you are progressive, conservative, or libertarian.


I have spent a lot of time responding to this article without pointing out why reading the Bible makes me more Libertarian. Going off my "Less is more" philosophy of life, which in this case, details that having fewer, well-developed points is preferable to a laundry list of poorly developed points, I have summarized below three reasons why the Bible supports the beliefs of Libertarianism

1. The more I read my Bible, the more I realize the Lord respects private property. 
We have already seen from the passage in Acts 5 that the Lord allowed Ananias and the other members of the church at Antioch to decide whether to sell their possessions or not for use in the apostles' "redistribution" scheme.

I also believe that several Jewish customs in the Old Testament, such as interest-free loans, were established to better allow the Jewish people to buy and sell land. Contrary to some beliefs, the Jewish people definitely had an idea and custom of private property. How else could Judas' thirty pieces of silver be used to buy a field if there was no custom of private property in the first place? How could Boaz own a field of wheat if ownership was not respected? How could David be keeping his father's sheep if all possessions were in common? Indeed Exodus 22 establishes the punishment of retribution for those guilty of theft of private property.

But I believe the better source of proof for the Lord's respect for private property comes from the verse I use in the title of this blog, 2 Timothy 2:6

"The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits." 

This verse is using the capitalist principle of wages and private ownership of the means of production to prove a greater point about how if you wish to reap the benefits of God's work, you must be willing to partake in the labour of it. Although we should always remember the metaphorical meaning of these words (every Friday's post expresses some truth about them), the literal meaning of the verse is still true and supports private property and the basis of all libertarian thought.

If I need to prove my point further, look to the ten commandments. As Messianic Jew Pastor Ted R. Weiland writes,

"Property is inherent to both the Fourth and Eighth Commandments. The Fourth Commandment’s stipulation concerning six days of labor provides a means of acquiring property, and the Eighth Commandment is predicated upon the right of ownership... Property implies ownership, and ownership entitles the owner to do with his property whatever he wishes, provided it does not violate the rights of others (Mathew 20:15) ... The Fourth and particularly the Eighth Commandment stand in stark contrast to the First Plank of the Communist Manifesto: “Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.” 

So the Lord clearly value private property, and in our dealings with others including government, we must do so as well. This is the primary reason I am a libertarian.

2. The more I read my Bible, the more I realize the Lord does not like to coerce people into certain actions or beliefs. 
Jesus had power at many different times to just force the people to his beliefs. Although he would rebuke them, and sometimes use force, he never used his supernatural powers or any type of governmental force to coerce someone into protecting him or believing what he said.

Throughout the entirety of the Bible, the Israelites are not once told to use force to convince someone of their views. Immigrants are given the choice of changing to the Israelites' religion, but they are never coerced into doing so.

Indeed the only time we see someone using force to coerce someone into a belief system is when the Jewish elders try to coerce people into not believing the words of Jesus and his apostles, or when they try to prevent the apostles from sharing the gospel.

Why is this? Why do we only have negative notions of people being coerced into actions and beliefs they may not desire? Quite frankly, I don't think a positive notion of such things could exist. If we are to love one another, shouldn't that start by letting each person live his own life without threat of government coercion? This means everything from being able to retain one's property and not forced to give it to whatever the government considers "charity" to any lifestyle choices that are being made. (Not to mention that the Bible clearly shows the fallibility and corruptibility of man. Why should we trust men to use their power over other men in a way that glorifies God?) We can disagree with the decisions of others, and we can  and should speak out against them, but it is not very loving for us to use the government to force people to act by our (or even the Lord's) standard of right and wrong. At its core, that is libertarianism - protecting individual rights from the coercion of government because that's how you love one another when discussing governmental rules.

3. The more I read my Bible, the more I realize the Lord holds each individual accountable for his own actions. 
The Bible proclaims in Romans 14:12, 

"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

When I read my Bible, I learn that the Lord is not concerned with keeping governments moral, nor is he concerned with keeping the church moral. No, what the Lord is concerned with, is whether each individual is moral and living a life of obedience to him. When he gives his commands, he is not normally (ever?) directing them at institutions like government, but is almost always directing them at the individual. This tells me that the Lord believes as libertarians do, in individual responsibility. Responsibility that is skirted when we consider it the government's job, not ours to care for the poor and other things. As we analyzed last week, Davy Crockett's summary of Horatio  Bunce's words in Not Yours to Give gives voice to how government can be used to skirt individual responsibility,

"There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington , no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give."

Government charity is praised because it allows those individuals to avoid the responsibility to engage and help out the poor themselves. This same principle is true for principles of environmental stewardship, education of children, and most other systems progressives believe to be an essential part of government.

It's not the government's job to do these things. History tells us that government makes the problem worse.  The Bible never tells us that the government needs to act and obey him. The Lord is not concerned with obedience from the government (I do believe he would rather the government just step out of the way), but with obedience from his people.

That is why when I read the Bible, I look for my own spiritual guidance, and not for support for my political views.

Bastiat's Conundrum: Communication is Key to Engaging Society

Not only is Frederic Bastiat a brilliant economist who wrote with extraordinary logical reasoning and depth, but also he clearly communicated to the layman. His works are not for the intellectual and academia, although I would hope both would appreciate his insights nonetheless. No, his works are written in a simple way that can communicate an introduction to economics for any layperson (including myself). Indeed Bastiat's most famous essay, The Law, is not a large conglomeration of economic jargon which only a few economics professors could decipher after a few years of study. On the contrary, it is a book that a high school senior could read and understand in about one or two hours.

So clear and profound is Bastiat's work, but he is little known. Evidently, being simple and clear is not a winning philosophy in the world of academia. As Donald J. Boudreaux explained in July, 2013,

"Bastiat was Keynes’s opposite in more ways than one.  Not only was Bastiat’s substantive economics poles apart from that of Keynes – and not only is Keynes, unlike the obscure Bastiat, still celebrated as one of history’s greatest and most influential economists – but Bastiat’s prose is always crystal clear, entertaining, and accessible.  As in the past, no reader must struggle to grasp Bastiat’s meaning.  But even professional economists must tussle with and tug at Keynes’s prose in The General Theory to uncover its meaning.  Reading Bastiat’s works and grasping his meaning gives no scholar any sense of accomplishment.  It's all so easy and enjoyable! The typical scholar’s conclusion, therefore, is that Bastiat was an intellectual lightweight.  That conclusion, of course, is wholly mistaken."

As sad as it is that scholars will write off Bastiat as shallow because of his clear and understandable writing style, we must be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that sometimes we think in the exact same way. If we can easily understand a point someone is making, we might be quick to assume that we already knew that point in the first place. But this is not necessarily true. A great communicator is one who can make a new and complicated topic seem like one you've known your whole life.

The more important takeaway from Bastiat's lack of renown though is a simple dilemma. It appears, that in our writing today, we have to choose whom we wish to engage, the scholars or the layperson. This conundrum, which I like to call Bastiat's Conundrum, is touched on in the Foundation for Economic Education article, "On Being a Catalyst."

In this article, Max Borders explains why instead of staying in an abstract world, economists should try to engage with people and persuade them to action. He uses the word "Catalyst" because in chemistry these are the substances that start a chemical reaction. He asks us simply what reaction to advance liberty are we starting by our words and actions. The best way for me to further explain his article is by letting you see the climax of his position. He writes,

"Being a classical liberal, the old way is seductive. We can spend our days sanctimoniously nitpicking other libertarians’ M.O.s on Facebook. We can craft our seamless syllogisms. We can write yet another journal article or whitepaper that will be read by friends who undoubtedly agree with us. We can rant and rave about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Or we can become catalysts."

Mr. Borders wishes economists to catalyze action among people, and indeed this is the key to the answering Bastiat's Conundrum. Being a catalyst starts by first deciding that it's the layperson who needs to be affected, not the academic scholars. Although I have nothing against academia (indeed, I oft had dreams of entering into such a profession myself), I must say that in bringing about real political change, what we need is the layperson on our side.

Liberty advances not based on the abstract works of academia unreadable by all but a select few, but rather through the actions of the population. The most obvious example is seen in the events surrounding the American Revolution. The Revolution was fought by a group of laypeople. The Boston Tea Party was executed by a group of laypeople. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was written for laypeople. It would be amiss to try to imagine an American nation "conceived in liberty" without these events. It wasn't the abstract works that made all the difference, but rather the common people who applied those abstract ideas in the real world.

Thus, the world needs more writers like Bastiat (and Max Borders), who are profound writers who know how to communicate and engage the world. But as Max Borders mentions, this is not enough. I'm sure Thomas Paine's Common Sense would not have been as impactful had he not suggested that America take specific action. It's time to engage the common people. It's time to persuade people to action. It's time to be catalysts.

When Government is the Answer

Yes, you read my title correctly. 

Those who have perused my website Human Scavengers may have noticed that I advocate a free market solution to the problem of products being made with aborted fetal cells and may conclude that I am a strong Libertarian. Personally, I consider myself a Federalist, but I distress over looks I receive upon saying that. Therefore, I identify myself as a Libertarian. 

Some may question how a Libertarian could be so strongly against abortion. There seems to be a problem with how people characterize the Libertarian "movement." (I use that term loosely as I don't like how it implies that Libertarianism is a recent development when it was really the groundwork for the Constitution in 1789.) 

Perhaps too many people equate Libertarianism with anarchy. Although there are some Libertarians who do believe that government as an entity is completely unnecessary, there are plenty of us who disagree. What most people don't realize about the Libertarian "movement" is that most believe that sometimes government is the answer. That bears repeating. 

Sometimes government IS the answer to America's problems. 

Certainly these situations are very rare, but nonetheless, they very much exist. Neither I, nor most Libertarians, would fret over government laws making theft, murder, and enslavement illegal. Some of us may disagree whether these laws should be state laws or federal laws, but we would admit that the government is the solution to problems such as these. In fact, that was the reason we believe government was created in the first place. 

David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, explained Libertarianism this way in his book Libertarianism: A Primer,

"Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others."

To further iterate that there is a misunderstanding of Libertarianism, I find that too often the last part of this definition, namely, "So long as he respects the equal rights of others" is left out. In this way, Libertarianism is restricted to being simply, "The view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses." This is a very weak philosophy which would indeed be unsuitable for the view that abortion is wrong and the government itself should do something about it. 

Thus far, we've talked a lot about what Libertarianism is not, but what is it actually? To put it a better way, what do Libertarians believe is the proper role of government? 

Although I cannot speak for every Libertarian in the country, I can say that as a whole, the ideology is marked with strikingly similar beliefs to those of nineteenth century political philosopher Frederic Bastiat. (I told you the principles of Libertarianism have been around for a while.)

Frederic Bastiat explains in his brilliant essay The Law what he believes to be the foundation for government. Simply, Bastiat believes that the purpose of government is to protect life, and as an extension, personality (or individuality), liberty, and property of individuals. 

"We hold from God the gift which, as far as we are concerned, contains all others, Life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot support itself. He who has bestowed it, has entrusted us with the care of supporting it, of developing it, and of perfecting it. To that end, He has provided us with a collection of wonderful faculties; He has plunged us into the midst of a variety of elements. It is by the application of our faculties to these elements, that the phenomena of assimilation and of appropriation, by which life pursues the circle which has been assigned to it, are realized.

Existence, faculties, assimilation — in other words, personality, liberty, property — this is man.

It is of these three things that it may be said... that they are anterior and superior to all human legislation.

It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life...

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together, to extend, to organize a common force, to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right; and the common force cannot rationally have any other end, or any other mission, than that of the isolated forces for which it is substituted. Thus, as the force of an individual cannot lawfully touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual — for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes."

Here Bastiat has outlined the foundation for government. He explains that people form governments to forcibly protect their rights, their individuality, their property, and their liberty. He concludes this passage by pointing out that the government by its nature lacks the authority and jurisdiction to "Destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes."

[In the United States government, there are many laws in violation of this principle of Bastiat, but alas, that is not the purpose of this post.  Thus, I will neglect to mention the NSA, individual mandates to buy insurance of any sort (or anything at all for that matter), and civil asset forfeiture in order to answer my initial question.]

So what do Bastiat's principles and Libertarianism have to do with this abortion crisis? In other words, how does abortion fall within the proper jurisdiction of government? 

How it falls within such governmental authority depends solely on your philosophical or religious belief. As you probably know, there are two primary camps when it comes to abortion: pro-choice and pro-life. The former states that abortion is a morally permissible act for various reasons (the most prevalent being that the "fetus" is not yet human). The latter, and in my opinion correct view of abortion, namely, pro-life, states that the unborn baby is both alive and human, and termination of said life would be murder, plain and simple.

Those who misunderstand Libertarianism will automatically say that it allows for "The right to live his life in any way he chooses." Thus, Libertarians must believe that women have the right to live their life without the "burdens" of a child, right? 

Wrong. Libertarians must not believe that at all. Some will, just as some Democrats and Republicans do, but that belief is not in any way a staple of the Libertarian Party. Remember, Libertarians believe that "Each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others." 

If a Libertarian accepts that an unborn baby is indeed alive and human, and has rights, then he finds the act of abortion to violate (or not respect) the equal rights of others. Thus, he considers abortion outside of a man's natural rights because it abridges the rights of others.

According to my understanding of Libertarianism, the government should have an obligation to reverse Roe v. Wade and to pass a law abolishing abortion entirely. It has the duty to be the solution for America's infanticide problem, just as it is the solution to the remaining murders in America today by punishment through the criminal justice system. 

In this belief, I am not alone. Dr. Ron Paul, leader of the resurrection of Libertarianism in politics today, explains in his book, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect our Freedom,

"On one occasion in the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, while visiting a surgical suite as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately two pounds.  It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice.  Soon the crying stopped....

That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant born was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted.  But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life.  My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die.  These were human lives.  There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. 

Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom.  I've never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.  To speak only of the mother's cost in carrying a baby to term ignores all thought of any legal rights of the unborn.

It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus...It's a giant leap of the federal courts to declare abortion as a constitutional right...If anything, the federal government has a responsibility to protect life - not grant permission to destroy it." 

Indeed, the travesty of Roe v. Wade is not a sign of strengthening Libertarianism. When one views abortion as murder, one views Roe v. Wade as very anti-libertarian. Looking back to Frederic Bastiat's essay, The Law, we can remember that the government "Cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes." What Roe v. Wade established was the idea that the Federal Government would force the states to keep this murder legal. The government is now "lawfully" used to destroy countless unborn babies before they have a chance to do anything but simply live. 

Abortion laws are the opposite of what Bastiat championed as the purpose of government. Rather, government has an obligation to protect life, not destroy it. So contrary to popular belief, Libertarians can believe that government is the answer to protecting life if government is used properly. So yes, you did read my title correctly. Sometimes government IS the answer to America's problems, and in protecting innocent victims of abortion, it needs to be.