Posted by
cavalier973 on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:07:37 AM
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n10_v42/ai_9051363/
Found this old (1990) article in National Review (!) by Lew Rockwell (!) about the traditional group of libertarians, who were Christians, and the rise of the atheistic libertarians with Ayn Rand. He traces the history of the religious roots of libertarianism, and makes some hopeful statements about the future Christian involvement in the libertarian movement that have obviously not come true--Christians did not return to their traditionally libertarian roots (read, for example, the Southern Baptists' (my church denomination) old anti-war statements from the WW2 era, and contrast it with more recent pronouncements on war); instead, they embraced the state more and more. Part of the reason, possibly, is the success they thought they had with the election of Reagan, and then the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, following up with the Presidency of George W. Bush.
Today's libertarian movement seems to be primarily atheist in worldview, with the Christian Libertarians (and Libertarian Christians) lurking around the margins, like some nerd in a high school clique, trying to make himself look cool to the atheist captain of the football team and impress the Objectivist Cheerleader.
Meanwhile, many atheistic libertarians mock attempts to reconcile Christian faith and libertarian political philosophy, and argue that the Christian's acceptance of a Higher Power at all disqualifies them from being truly opposed to the State; that the idea of subjecting oneself to an Infinite Creator God somehow makes one more readily accepting of the State's lordship as well. But as Prof. Rockwell points out, the organization originally successful in limiting government was the Roman Catholic Church, which by the late middle ages was able to impose various restrictions on governement powers (like war-making), because it gave the populace at large an Entity to which to be loyal over and above and against the State. While Scripture provides guidance in how to relate to government officials on a practical daily basis (pay your taxes, give government officials the respect they expect, etc.), this advice is given with a view to keep out of the government's radar as much as possible so that the Gospel may spread freely, and in no way overrules the Christian's duty to "obey God rather than men." Because they have a Higher Power than government to obey, and because the government has historically opposed him and his God, much of the time violently; because he believes (or at least, ought to believe) that no government decree can advance the cause of the Gospel, or even make the unredeemed to be moral people, the Christian should naturally gravitate toward libertarianism. Unfortunately, when any group of people gain political power, as the "Christian Right" did starting in the 1980's and remaining through today, they become infected with the viral belief that they can make the world better by decree and violent coercion. I believe, however (and perhaps it is pollyannish of me to believe so), that Christians, in America, are, after their serious flirtation with government idolatry, gravitating back to a libertarian understanding of the world.
The atheist libertarians declare they need no Higher Power to understand and embrace libertarianism. Instead, they rely on what they declare to be the axiomatic principle of non-aggression. Unfortunately, this principle is not logically obvious in a world born of random chaotic events. If the universe, and any life residing therein, is the product of a giant accident, then there is no basis to accept any philosophical statement as axiomatically "true"; there are only competing preferences. It could be cynically argued that the only reason an atheistic libertarian accepts the non-aggression principle is that he is not himself clever enough or strong enough to get what he wants through the normal processes of coercion. There is even an historical argument that can be made that, with violent aggression being the normal state for human relations, a principle of pro-aggression could be axiomatically true. "Survival of the fittest", to coin a phrase. My reading of history tells me that the one who is strong and aggressive usually gains a nice living while he lives (at least, a better living than the poor schlubs against whom he aggresses) and a sort of immortality--praise from the historians and emulation from aspirants to power--after he dies. Saying that it was wrong for Napoleon to wield the State's power to kill and oppress so many people is merely expressing an opinion, not an axiomatic truth, if one grants that it occured in a world sporting unplanned life that develops through random genetic mutation and undirected natural selection.