Why State and Church should be Separated

I apparently can't count my weeks or know the difference between a politics post and an ethics post because I just did two ethics post in consecutive weeks. Whoops-a daisy. So I guess this leaves me answering the question three weeks after I promised to answer it in two weeks. My apologies.

So why does the state need protection from the church while the church needs protection from the state?

We shall once again look to history to see why. Let us begin with why the church needs protected from the state.

The year is 1547 and the country is England. Thirteen years prior, the Act of Supremacy had been passed. This act gave authority over the church (papal authority) to the monarch.

In 1547, under the reign of the first largely radical protestant monarch, Edward VI, the Act is used to make supreme changes to the official Church of England to make it more protestant. At which point, of course, protestants consider England to be a safe haven and openly worship there.

But then Edward VI dies. He is succeeded by Queen Mary I. If there is one word to describe Mary's religious leanings, it would be simply -  Catholic. Mary uses her new-found power over the church to drastically undo all of Edward's reforms. But most dreadfully of all, she uses her power to persecute and even kill protestants who would argue with Catholic doctrines.

At which point, we can see clearly two pitfalls of a state-dominated church, or put another way, two reasons why the church needs protected from the state. First the political whims of the state can easily destabilize the church. Second, free exercise of religion is not protected because the coercive power of the state is used to persecute religious minorities.

I'm hoping that with my audience, I don't need to argue that persecution of religious minorities is a bad thing, but if I do: dehumanization, tyranny, oppression, suffering, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, etc.

But perhaps we don't see a reason why state must be protected from the church. After all, the state is under the authority of God, so why shouldn't they also be under the authority of the church?

To see the pitfalls, we need look no further than the Middle East. (Note: many oversimplifications will emerge in this post as Middle Eastern politics is just simply complex.)

In the Middle East, many countries are controlled either officially or unofficially by the church within that country. Ultimately, most of the tension politically both within and between nations comes as a result of tension between the two major Islamic denominations: Sunni and Shiite.

And of course, one need not look far to see the persecution that Middle Eastern countries tend to place upon religious minorities, whether within the religion of Islam or not.

Thus, we see the problems with a church-dominated state as well. First, the whims of the church can destabilize the state. Second, free exercise of religion is not protected because the coercive power of the state is used to persecute religious minorities.

So yes, we need to protect both entities from each other because without that, we see no true stability. More importantly, we see no true protection for the freedom of religion.

Theme Beyond the Screen: Captain America: Winter Soldier

Movies. They are great entertainment and can give friends and strangers alike something to converse about. But movies are probably most intriguing for their subtle (and not so subtle) teachings about people, life, God, or politics.

Today, I would like to examine and really explain the themes of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. 

I will admit that comic book movies don't usually make a stand on anything at all. Thus, when this installment in the Marvel Universe established the theme of liberty's importance, it naturally made me pretty excited (even more so than I was just by the fact that it was, you know, Captain America).

In the movie, Captain America finds himself working for S.H.I.E.L.D., a bureaucracy which he believes has too much power and is veiled in too much secrecy. His main problem with this is not that it is inherently bad, but just that he refuses to trust a bureaucracy so large.

Director (of S.H.I.E.L.D.) Fury of course wants to calm his fears about S.H.I.E.L.D., but instead of trying to persuade him that S.H.I.E.L.D. does not endanger liberty, he argues that the slight infringement of liberty is necessary to protect security.

He even goes so far as to show Captain America three highly weaponized helicarriers to demonstrate how they can "Neutralize threats before they even happen."

Captain America responds (all of this is before the Winter Soldier is introduced in case you were wondering),

"I thought the punishment usually came after the crime...This isn't freedom; this is fear."  

Benjamin Franklin would approve of Captain America's sentiment. Remember this popular quotation,

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

For the movie, it will turn out that both of these men would be right. During circumstances in the movies that I would rather not spoil for my wonderful readers, the "Bad guys" get a hold of these deadly weapons. The rest of the movie is centered on how to prevent them from using them.

But the bad guys want to absolutely destroy freedom because they believe that freedom is inherently self-destructive. You see, man just can't be trusted with his own freedom, and thus, he needs to be told what to do.

It's a generic and cliche motivation for a villain, but there is a reason for that. It's an argument that has been around for a while and that many intelligent people have fallen prey into believing. Unfortunately, the argument fails for a simple reason. If we can't trust men with their own lives, how are we to trust the same men with the lives of others.

This is what the bad guys show us in their entire scheme. Their means to international security and peace are heinous at best. Trusting them with the power of S.H.I.E.L.D. is not wise at all.

But the Captain makes the case that trusting S.H.I.E.L.D. with its own power is also not very wise. He believes that S.H.I.E.L.D. is trying to govern the lives of others just as much as the bad guys do. Though they may still argue for freedom, they have forgotten what that actually looks like in their pursuit of security and interstellar peace.

Captain America sees no real difference between the tactics of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the tactics of the bad guys except whom is targeted. He does not believe that we should trust any bureaucracy with that power.

In fact, at a crucial point, S.H.I.E.L.D. wants to simply regain their own access to their deadly weapons, instead of destroying them. But Captain America refuses to stand for that!

He understands that we have to prepare for government at its worst, not at its best. Not just because that power can be commandeered by those with evil motivations, but because all men can make mistakes, or be corrupted by the seductiveness of power.

Captain America understands that liberty is important and must be protected by limiting the power of the government entirely. We must be careful not to surrender too much power and give away too much liberty to our government in hopes of security.

This may seem costly, but as the Captain says in a really cheesy, yet incredibly awesome monologue:

"The price of freedom is high, but it's a price I'm willing to pay." 

Sanctions a Beneficial Policy Tool?

Are sanctions a beneficial policy tool?

Before we start answering that question, let us remind ourselves that according to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, sanctions are defined as,

"An action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws by limiting or stopping trade with that country, by not allowing economic aid for that country, etc."

So now to answer the question. Should sanctions be used to push the United States agenda? Are you ready for this? Ok here you go.

Sanctions don't work.

Simply put, sanctions are not an effective tool in foreign policy. Today, I would like to highlight five reasons why United States sanctions are doomed to fail.

1. It's a global market.
United States sanctions are supposed to punish the economy of the target nation by revoking them access to the United States economy. Our politicians apparently believe that the United States economy is so important that losing access to our economy alone will substantially hurt the economy of the sanctioned nation. 

While it is true that the United States economy is strong, countries can still survive just fine without goods from the United States. Indeed, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, only 8.5% of the world's exports came from the United States in 2010.

I think it's safe to say that the targeted country will manage to find a way to get by with the 91.5% of world exports they can receive from other countries. (US imports in case you were wondering are only slightly higher at 12.3%.)

2. Sanctions hurt the economy of the United States.
Oh, and did I mention that sanctions prevent the United States companies from freely trading with the target nations? Yes, indeed, the target nations find other suppliers from countries, like Canada, China, England, or Russia, but the United States businesses are still deprived of a trading partner.

We should heed the words of Dr. C. Fred Bergsten, founder of The Peterson Institute for International Economics, in 1998, when,

"We lose exports...on the order of at least $15 billion to $20 billion per year as a result of our own sanctions against other countries. Those results are probably greatly understated because, over the long term, we acquire the reputation of being an unreliable supplier...Those are big losses to the American economy, probably on the order of a quarter of a million high-paying jobs a year... Those are losses that are highly discriminatory... because they hit companies and workers who just happen to sell to countries that we don’t like that year. In short, a cost-benefit analysis suggests that sanctions are one of the worst foreign policy tools we have."

3. They tend to punish the people of the country, rather than those responsible.
But let's just take a step back for a second and assume incorrectly that sanctions actually achieve their objective -  they actually hurt the target nation. That's great, right? Not exactly.

Sanctions try to coerce nations to our will by limiting trade between the two countries. But think just for a minute about your country's commerce. Who trades with other nations? It's not a government to government deal. No, trade generally happens between one private citizen to another, or from one private business to another.

But the people within these countries are not responsible for the actions of their government! Nor is there any guarantee that the government of this nation will care about the suffering of the people. All we've managed to do thus far is harm the people of the target nation (and our own) all for naught, as the government keeps going on its merry way. As Professor Charles A. Rarick says in 2007,

"Economic sanctions deprive the people of the sanctioned country their basic right to a better standard of living."

4. Rally around the flag.
But it gets worse. Not only do sanctions have only a negligible negative impact on the government, sanctions generally strengthen the position of the government. To see why, simply picture some siblings.

Siblings are not necessarily always friendly with one another. They fight. In extreme circumstances, they can even go through entire months where they don't speak to one another. But as soon as you attack one sibling, you better expect the wrath of the rest. All prior anger, all grudges, and all tension between the siblings disappears when one is confronted.

This same principle applies to countries as well. Citizens may not like the actions of their political leaders, but as soon as you attack them, patriotism takes over, and the citizens suddenly are avid supporters of their government. This phenomena is called the "Rally around the flag."

In addition, sanctions provide a convenient scapegoat to dictators for the poverty of the people. Kim Jong-Un can shrug off his oppression of the North Koreans, as he can just blame the United States sanctions. I seriously think that anti-US propaganda is already strong enough in countries like Cuba and North Korea that we really shouldn't be giving them any legitimate grievances.

But sanctions do just that. Ivan Eland, Ph.D. explains in 2006,

"Also undermining the achievement of sanctions’ political goals is the 'rally around the flag' effect. When attacked, either militarily or economically, by a foreign power, the populace of a country usually rallies around the existing leader—no matter how odious he or she may be. Fidel Castro, despite the disastrous consequences of his centralization of the Cuban economy, has been able to blame poverty and economic stagnation on the coercive economic measures imposed by his powerful northern neighbor. In other words, the Cuban people likely would have thrown out Castro long ago if the United States hadn’t declared him 'enemy number one.'"

5. Sanctions make us feel like we're doing something to help.
But it is understandable why we would like sanctions. Sometimes, we see problems in the world that we feel need to be addressed, but we know that it would be unwise to intervene militarily in those areas. We view sanctions as an opportunity to do something. To make a difference in the world.

But our intentions and hopes just don't match with reality. We feel good that we've helped these people in their crisis, but we haven't. As the aforementioned article from Charles A. Rarick notes, sanctions at best succeed only 20% of the time. They simply are not effective tools in foreign policy.

But we keep using them. But it's all for naught. Or maybe it's all for us. Either way, we need to admit that sanctions just don't work.

Hold The Applause: FDR and the New Deal

Oh, we all know the story. The Great Depression was a tremendous catastrophe caused by the failures of the free market. Ultimately capitalism was saved from its failings by President Franklin Roosevelt, more commonly known as FDR. FDR's excellent proposal posed a radical shift in governmental policy in response to economic depressions. Eventually, the depression resided due to these marvelous policies.

But it's just that - a story. But even at first glance, it becomes pretty clear that this is not really what happened. After all, why would it take so long for these policies (labeled the New Deal) to make a positive difference. In all recessions prior to this point, there had been a much stronger and quicker response (the government doing nothing in these instances just in case you were wondering). In fact, Robert Murphy, Ph.D. details in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal that this recovery was the slowest in American history even until today.

Now before you all go accusing me of the post hoc fallacy, I will supply you with some causal links between Roosevelt's New Deal policies and the slower response to the American economy. At its core, Roosevelt's policies attacked the little man for the benefit of, well, no one at all.

When one wished to express the success of the New Deal, they point to Roosevelt as a hero of the little guy, how he presented opportunities for the working man to earn money to live in the harsh economy, instead of supporting big business. But Roosevelt's iron knife struck not only the big business, but also every business, especially the smaller ones.

When you regulate every aspect of how someone could run a business, big businesses will have the necessary funds to adapt to these procedures. Although they will not likely be as well off as they initially would have been, they will still be able to make a profit.

But most times, circumstances aren't quite so pleasant for a small business owner. The little guy has difficulty making a profit when the government takes away some of his creative controls. To illustrate, listen to this true story from the days of the Great Depression, told by Burton Folsom in the book, New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy has Damaged America, 

"[Jerry] Maged had been pressing pants for twenty-two years and his low prices and quality work had kept him competitive with large tailor shops in the better parts of town. The NRA [National Recovery Administration, created in a New Deal policy] Cleaners and Dryers Code demanded that 40 cents be charged to press a suit. Maged, despite repeated warnings, insisted on charging his customers only 35 cents.... Not only was Maged thrown in jail, he was also slapped with a hundred-dollar fine."

The impact to small business is obvious. Business owners (not greedy rich business owners mind you, but rather those who are simply trying to support their families) are being threatened with jail for doing something as innocent as selling their services for a discounted rate.

Cutting out the main advantage that a small business can have over a large business is not a winning strategy for economics, nor is it looking out for the little guy. Jailing a man for disobeying regulations is akin to tyranny.

But there is another consequence to this particular event as well. The government was literally ensuring that prices remained high. FDR and his compatriots were ensuring that services were not affordable to the common man. These actions are simply unforgivable and definitely strengthened and prolonged the suffering of the American people.

But that's not even the worst thing that FDR did with the New Deal. Indeed, these actions indirectly hurt many Americans and decreased the sizes of their wallets, but from an economic standpoint, nothing could be worse than the outright theft that the Roosevelt Administration committed by taking America off the gold standard.

Now you may question how the gold standard equates with theft of the American people. To be sure, the link is not readily apparent. Nevertheless, it is there. Allow me some time to explain it.

From 1873 onward, the federal government promised the American people that in exchange for their certificates, they would be given gold. Indeed that gold the United States government possessed was given by the American people in exchange for these certificates because of this promise. In this way, the dollar we owned really could be exchanged for 1.505 grams of gold. Rather, one dollar was 1.505 grams of gold. For the sake of convenience, we had stored our gold with the federal government to exchange paper which represented the gold we owned of the government's store - gold we could withdraw at any time.

Then Roosevelt swooped in and enforced a different exchange. You give me these paper certificates which indicate the gold you own, and I will give you worthless paper that is only valuable because the government says so. In this way, Roosevelt stole gold from the American people.

Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D. expressed it quite well in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, 

"Short of herding tens of thousands of children into concentration camps - something Roosevelt also did: remember the Japanese internment camps - it would be difficult for the president to behave in a more tyrannical fashion. The gold certificates held by the public had not been gifts from the U.S. Treasury. On the contrary, they were redemption tickets for which individuals and companies had traded away actual gold, or other goods and services, because the United States government had pledged, since 1873, to surrender physical gold to anyone bearing the certificates, at the rate of $20.67 per ounce. Ordering the public to turn in the gold certificates, in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes (noticeably lacking the phrase, "PAYABLE TO THE BEARER"), was naked theft, just as surely as if President Obama ordered the public to turn in all Iphones in exchange for Blackberries. The theft would be made quite explicit when the government officially tied the dollar back to gold the following year at the rate of $35 per troy ounce, a depreciation of more than 40 percent. (Note that American citizens still could not redeem their paper currency for gold at any exchange rate.) Ordering the public to turn over its gold - under penalty of a $10,000 fine and up to ten years in prison - was clear-cut robbery." 

All of the American people were forcibly robbed of their resources, but it's all ok because we got useless paper money in return, right? I don't think so, yet many around the world, praise this and other moves by FDR as the boost the American economy needed to find its way out of the Great Depression.

But that is not the case at all. Roosevelt was not the saviour of the free market, nor the defender of the little man. On the contrary, his policies prevented the little man from competing against the larger corporations, while stealing the gold of every American citizen in the country, all under threat of incarceration. Not only was the New Deal counter-productive, it was tyrannical, stealing by threat of force. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was surely no hero.

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.