Libertarian Platform Reviewed from a Christian
Perspective
Introduction
While I am a member of the Libertarian
party, there are some things in their platform that I
think need to be explained and critiqued from a Christian
perspective. Understand that while I remain Libertarian
due to their beliefs more aligning with my own, their platform
isn't perfect, and in some ways it is contradictory. I'll
try to explain piece by piece.
Personal Liberty
First, the element of self-ownership seems supported by the Bible. God asks us, as sovereign individuals, to obey His commands. However, even though the Christian should recognize that their body belongs to God now, they are still to exert control over their bodies and submit their will to God.
Second, the element of free speech is not denied by the Bible. It teaches that people should regulate what they say, but never denies them free speech. Indeed, to be able to witness to the lost requires free speech: without it, Christians are jailed for proselytizing.
Third, as to privacy, nothing in Scripture denies people their privacy. We are encouraged in James to share with others, as Christians, in church, our problems so we can receive support and prayer.
Fourth, as to personal relationships, while Scripture explains how people should act and behave as Christians, it also teaches that the lost are going to act lost. I don't see any way in which civil unions cannot exist: God speaks to Christians to regulate their behavior, and never tells us to take over the laws of countries.
Fifth, the Libertarian principle of parental rights is useful in that Christians should be allowed to raise their children any way they want so long as they are free from abuse and neglect (which in the Libertarian mind erode freedom, and in the Christian mind are evil because they cause harm).
Sixth, the Libertarian principle of adult rights marries well with Scripture, as the Bible is very pro-responsibility (see especially the book of Proverbs).
Seventh, at first the Libertarian take on crime and justice makes sense. However, they then list that they favor repealing "crimes without victims" laws. The problem is here they neglect to see the reality of the situation. Gambling harms those who gamble (no one has infinite money) and is an addictive behavior. The majority of gamblers are harming both themselves and their relationships with others through gambling. Listening to the stories of children harmed by their parents' gambling is enough to be able to tell that gambling isn't good. This stance has the same problem when it comes to "drugs for ... recreational purposes." Illicit drugs harm the user and their relationships: they are almost never "victimless crimes." Finally, the same for "consensual transactions involving sexual services" applies here: prostitution is harmful to prostitutes, Johns, and pimps. It's not a "victimless crime."
As a drug counselor, I find perhaps the
"victimless crime" myth the most egregious of the Libertarian
platform mantras. Addiction, in all forms, is the #1 enemy
of true liberty and freedom in US society right now. I
would advocate that a better way to phrase this platform item
would be that the Libertarian party would support people being
mandated to treatment rather than jail or prison, a position I
would support. If we stray too far into "Liberty above all
else," we adopt a mindset where we ignore the addicted masses on
the streets. And no, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl,
methamphetamine, etc., processed drugs are not natural (we
concentrated their effects) and they are not able to be enjoyed
in moderation. I can't tell you how many people I help to
free themselves from addiction began thinking they could control
it, and soon found out they cannot. To continue to think
that people can enjoy "hard" drugs in moderation is to reveal a
blind spot.
Eighth, the death penalty. I don't mind so much, because the Bible (NT) doesn't prescribe that Christians force governments to have a death penalty. God is in favor of a death penalty because He prescribed it for the OT Israel nation. However, this area can be a place to differ without outright conflict because the NT believer isn't tasked with enforcing a death penalty.
Ninth, the Bible supports self-defense at least in the OT. The NT believer is not mandated to be 100% peaceful. The "turn the other cheek" commandment (Matthew 5) is talking about 1) non-lethal force as 2) a public insult. It should be rather obvious what we are allowed to do once we "run out of cheeks."
Economic Liberty
First, as for aggression, property, and contract, the Bible (OT) supported punishments for invasion of property, stealing, and lying as general principles. The Bible in general seems to be amicable to this part of the Libertarian Platform. I would add that property taxes should be eliminated (as would Libertarians) because they constitute an implied possession of all land in a country by the government. People cannot be truly free if they cannot own property without paying their government for the privilege (ultimately). I would also add here that I am against imminent domain laws. These laws basically sanction theft by the government.
Second, the environment. I do not
completely agree with the Libertarian philosophy that free
markets should stimulate "behavioral changes required to protect
our environment and ecosystem." I would point out that
historically, US businesses didn't care about environmentalism
until forced to do so by the EPA. The EPA does other
things that I don't agree with, but I would also point out that
the Libertarian platform tends to believe that somehow
grass-roots protests of bad business environmental practices
will always be successful. How many times has the
government (state or federal) had to step in to stop
pollution? To force companies to not do wrong? I
want to have a smaller, less corrupt government, but I have a
hard time understanding how one can think that grass-roots
protests always win. More often than not, businesses
ignore such protests. The Bible is sort of silent on this
topic, though (Romans 13) we are required to obey laws so long
as they do not contradict God's laws.
Third, the Libertarian platform is against
subsidizing energy and resources. Here, I agree, but I
would point out that it could end up in an "energy farming"
configuration where a myriad of companies and plans make it
difficult for the average consumer to even know how best to
proceed. I am all for solar energy, which puts most the
power (no pun intended) back in consumers. But I'm also
against government subsidies. The Bible doesn't really
speak to power infrastructure.
Fourth, government finance and spending. The Libertarian platform has been against income tax for a long time, preaching "taxation is theft." In some ways it is, but I would modify this, per Scripture (Romans 13), that excessive taxation is theft. God instituted tax-like rules within OT Jewish laws for the support of temples and the priests. But God only asked for 10%. In all honesty, US taxes, combined, far exceed 10%. Some money is necessary for having a military and basics, but anything more is theft through excessive taxation. The Bible would call, generally, governmental officials to do what is right (i.e. would minimize corruption). Jesus also did not get on the case of tax collectors in His ministry on Earth, though He applauded Zacchaeus for giving back his excessive taxing of others.
Fifth, the Libertarian party advocates that governments not incur debt, and I completely agree. God's own nation in the OT was told that they would lend to other nations and other people, but not borrow. I believe God would generally support a balanced budget amendment.
Sixth, the Libertarian party is against unions or dues to join government employment, and I agree. The Bible doesn't really speak to this, so no problem here.
Seventh, the Libertarian party favors free-market banking. I can agree to many of their principles, such as vigorously prosecuting fraud and being against governmental guarantees or bailouts. The Bible doesn't generally speak to this, although it applauded Joseph's wisdom during the famine in Egypt. Note that what Joseph did was smart, but would technically constitute socialism or communism in a way. I don't support socialism or communism. The Libertarian party also advocates ending student loan debt, and I disagree, but I agree that the problem is the "special handling" of this debt. The government is giving people low interest student loans but then forgiving them rather than holding them accountable (I don't include those with legitimate disabilities here). The government should stop doing that, and in fact, it should deny a tax return (i.e. payment) and absorb it for anyone who is defaulting on their student loans. But I also believe we need to fix the tax system in our country....
Eighth, the Libertarians support free markets and oppose subsidies and bailouts. I completely agree here. The Bible doesn't really speak to this.
Ninth, the Libertarian party advocates free and voluntary work earnings, which means they oppose occupational and licensing laws because this constitutes a state-granted privilege. I cannot completely agree here, because it is licensing that helps ensure that, for instance, your psychologist or therapist or doctor truly has what it takes to help you (in general). I do chafe against state-granted privilege principles, but it was those ideals that influenced, for instance, CACREP accreditation of schools that produce therapists and social workers. But I can also see the Libertarian side of certifications by voluntary associations of professionals. The Bible doesn't speak on this matter.
Tenth, sex work. The Libertarian party supports decriminalizing it. The Bible stands completely against it. The Bible rightly condemns it as increasing the unfaithfulness among men (Proverbs 23). I would support decriminalizing the part of prostitution that punishes the prostitutes: the majority of these are being forced into (or feel they are forced into) prostitution. Or it is desperation or drug use. I would support a system where Johns and pimps are punished, but not prostitutes. Far too many of them are being held in this job against their will. Complete decriminalization is a very bad idea. Jesus was forgiving and gracious towards three women who likely were actively in prostitution or used to be (the sinful woman in Luke 7, the woman at the well, and the woman caught in adultery), so abstractly I think the Nordic model would make more sense.
One need not look far to see that the sex
trade corrupts people. Two of the main Lolita Express
frequent fliers were Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. We
also saw Bill Cosby end up corrupted (or being encouraged
towards more corruption) by his frequent trips to the Playboy
Mansion. The Playboy Mansion is where many, many abuses
occurred, as
reported by the many models who worked there. In
fact, the
list of those implicated in Eppstein's files is incredibly
long, and highly damning. And I appeal to conscience here:
how is it that so many people know that philandering and
pedophilia are wrong? It can't just be society's
laws. God gave people a conscience for a reason like
this. Indeed, how many women are going to need to post to
social media and complain about their husbands becoming
unfaithful and unloving before we finally figure this out?
Don't appeal to sexology (Kinsey Institute), as Kinsey supported
pedophilia.
Eleventh, the Libertarian platform wants to make labor a matter of private, not federal or governmental, self-regulation. To a point I can agree. However, I would also point out that there have been historical times in the US where the government has had to step in to prevent the abuses of a completely unregulated capitalist economy, such as child labor laws (to a point). I think there should be some industries that children should be allowed to be a part of, but completely deregulating this would lead us back to a time in history where we see a rise in children being harmed or maimed at work. The Bible does not contain child labor laws, so I would think the Bible would not enact child labor laws. But in general, the Bible also strongly advocates that we do not harm workers, and if they are harmed, that they ought to be compensated.
Twelfth, the Libertarian party wants education to be via free market. The Bible does not take a stance on this matter. I can see the abolition of some public schools to be a good thing, as many are quite bad. I can also support moving to a system more like Japan, where only K-9th grade are mandated. One has to compete to get into high school (10-12 grade). I can see this being a better way to regulate some parts of education in the US. I would, however, side with the Libertarian party that some, in fact probably most, public schools need to be abolished. I would want to see us go back to a system where teachers are paid and more accountable to those who pay them (parents) rather than being able (as with some government jobs) to hide behind regulations and rules and do a minimal quality job. However, I would also caution that one perhaps unexpected con of privatizing all education is that some may be permitted to grow up in "fake news" environments at home. It's already bad enough, even with public school, that people still grow up to believe highly illogical things they see on the internet, which is (thankfully) not regulated. For instance, as a drug counselor, I hesitate to tell any patient to just go and look up the answers on Google, especially given the high level of disinformation on marijuana. It remains to be seen if people would educate themselves properly, as decades of public school in America has led the majority of the masses to not understand what qualifies true science and true knowledge, and the internet is full of lies.
Thirteenth, the Libertarian Platform is that health care be free market, not government-provided. The Bible does not speak on this matter. I completely agree that health care should be privatized, and not subsidized. The health care system in America is very good among other nations, but one of the abuses is the amount of money that companies charge. I saw this when an ambulatory company wanted to charge me $3,500+ for transporting me and my son 1 hour to a different facility. When my insurance paid it out, I noticed it paid only $800 and that the company "discounted" the rest of it. This means many medical companies are intentionally charging people more than the services actually cost. The Bible does speak against theft and injustice, and I would argue that having a different price between private pay and insurance constitutes "unjust weights and scales" (Leviticus 19).
Fourteenth, the Libertarian Party is against social security, and I completely agree. The Bible does not speak to this. However, the social security system, while slightly good during the Great Depression but should have been phased out immediately. I would also support a responsible phase-out of the social security system. People should invest privately for their retirements and/or use company retirement systems that they earn through their labor. The moment the government provides assistance for those in dire straits, those not in dire straits become dependent upon it.
Securing Liberty
First, the libertarian party supports the national defense. The Bible generally is amicable to a national defense, as God enacted the concept in the OT for the Israelites. However, I also agree with the Libertarian party that we should avoid entangling alliances and not act as the world's police. We should only be in countries that want us there, outside of war. The Bible does speak vaguely to the Israelites not making entangling treaties and alliances with other nations within the Sinai peninsula, but this doesn't absolutely apply to modern times.
Second, the Libertarian party does not support the curtailment of individual rights. I agree to this, such as the times when governors have tried to deny people the right to bear arms as they are fleeing a flood or other disaster. The Bible does not really speak to this, however.
Third, the Libertarian party advocates peace with all nations but entangling alliances with none. To this, I agree. I think also that we should stop giving aid to other countries, at least temporarily so we can pay down our own deficit. The Bible doesn't really speak directly to this, except as previously stated. It's not wrong to be humanitarian, but I think at least temporarily all foreign aid should stop so our country can correct its deficit. To owe other countries money is to degrade our national sovereignty.
Fourth, the Libertarian party supports free trade and deregulating trade. The Bible doesn't speak to this directly. I agree here to a point, though I want import tariffs to return. Completely fair trade results in much damage to the USA's workers because another country can always make it cheaper than we can, and thus to allow unrestricted flow of cheaper goods into the USA results in loss of jobs.
Fifth, the Libertarian party believes all people are born with inherent rights. The Bible generally tends to support this, as do I.
Sixth, the Libertarian party supports the right to petition government for redress of grievances and to express dissent. The Bible doesn't generally speak to this, but I agree with this principle.
Seventh, finally, the Libertarian party
supports the rights of citizens to alter, abolish, or withdraw
from any government that is restrictive or destructive of
individual liberty. To this, I agree, though I would
advocate that at all times, non-violent means should be
used. I, for one, a USAF veteran, will never shoot my
fellow countrymen, so if the government recalled me due to a
revolution, I would instead disappear and hide until the
conflict is over. I can fight against tyranny, such as a
Trump led coup, but not when there is not a clear right side to
be on.