It has been a while since I posted anything online related to my political views at all. I thought I would make a posting on where I would fall on these matters nowadays. At one time I had an posting about a dispensational defense of being a Christian libertarian being we are in the Church Age. I have since then had to figure out if libertarian defined my views or not.
There is a huge umbrella of views all of which fall under libertarian as a marker of one's views. Thus simply saying you are a Christian whom supports libertarianism could mean any number of things. Including things I do not support at all. As with any political idea, libertarianism is actually a spectrum of ideas rather than an explicit dogma. In modern Western politics, the most visible version of libertarianism is often called right-libertarianism.Few, if any, right-libertarians advocate for a complete elimination of the state. This makes right-libertarianism a form of minarchy, or minimal government. In its purest form, a right-libertarian government would only perform two functions: defend the nation against foreign attack and prosecute criminals. All political philosophies have in-house debates on where to draw the line on government interference. Libertarianism typically prefers far less government involvement—and government power—than competing views.
The libertarian benchmark for any idea or institution is its effects on individual freedom and the basic rights of people. More so than in most other political theories, the debate within libertarianism can lead two libertarians to diametric conclusions about the same issue.
For example,
• Concerning abortion, one libertarian might say any restriction is an illegitimate interference by government. Another might argue that abortion is an act of violence against the unborn.
• Regarding drug use, some libertarians believe all substances should be legal to buy, sell, and consume. Others suggest unchecked drug use creates threats to safety and security.
• Concerning marriage, libertarians may prefer no benefits or restrictions beyond private religious recognition. Libertarians may also argue the contrary: that promoting the best, most natural child-rearing arrangement is necessary for the survival of society.
• Some libertarians support using tax dollars for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, and fire departments. Others prefer such things to be entirely privatized, paid for only by those who want to benefit from them.
Biblically, libertarianism finds both support and boundaries. People are ultimately accountable to God, not government (Hebrews 4:13). Regardless of the laws of the land, each person has an obligation to do what is right in God’s eyes (Acts 4:29; 1 Corinthians 10:13). Scripture is full of cautionary tales about human government, including God’s own warning about the intrinsic dangers of being subject to earthly kings (1 Samuel 8:10–17). A Christian may lean libertarian due to libertarianism’s emphasis on personal rights.
Many Christian libertarians argue that even a “good” government empowered to enforce Christian ideals can just as easily prosecute those ideals later on. Such believers seek the freedom to live a life honoring God without government coercion or interference (1 Timothy 2:1–2). At the same time, Scripture says that human government is established by God in order to curb human sin (Romans 13:1–4). This means that if a Christian is to consider themselves a libertarian one needs to make sure they are not supporting the anarchistic faction.
There is nothing in the Bible forbidding a Christian from being a libertarian. Nor does Scripture demand believers adhere to libertarianism. Deciding where to draw boundaries around the government’s role is part of our Christian liberty. It’s an issue each believer needs to prayerfully and carefully consider.
I have come to realize I belong politically to a post 9/11 and more modern/moderate form of libertarianism known as Neo-Libertarianism. Advocating a society where individual freedom is maximized, government intervention is minimized, and free market capitalism is promoted, while also supporting some level of social safety net and foreign intervention for the protection of human rights.
The first neo-libertarians used the term in response to the Iraq War. Neo-libertarians proudly set out their reasons for supporting the War on Terror and an effort to secure the freedom of the Iraqi people. Neo-Libertarianism (also spelled Neolibertarianism) is an economically right-wing, moderate libertarian, and culturally right-leaning ideology.
For example,
• Concerning abortion, one libertarian might say any restriction is an illegitimate interference by government. Another might argue that abortion is an act of violence against the unborn.
• Regarding drug use, some libertarians believe all substances should be legal to buy, sell, and consume. Others suggest unchecked drug use creates threats to safety and security.
• Concerning marriage, libertarians may prefer no benefits or restrictions beyond private religious recognition. Libertarians may also argue the contrary: that promoting the best, most natural child-rearing arrangement is necessary for the survival of society.
• Some libertarians support using tax dollars for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, and fire departments. Others prefer such things to be entirely privatized, paid for only by those who want to benefit from them.
Biblically, libertarianism finds both support and boundaries. People are ultimately accountable to God, not government (Hebrews 4:13). Regardless of the laws of the land, each person has an obligation to do what is right in God’s eyes (Acts 4:29; 1 Corinthians 10:13). Scripture is full of cautionary tales about human government, including God’s own warning about the intrinsic dangers of being subject to earthly kings (1 Samuel 8:10–17). A Christian may lean libertarian due to libertarianism’s emphasis on personal rights.
Many Christian libertarians argue that even a “good” government empowered to enforce Christian ideals can just as easily prosecute those ideals later on. Such believers seek the freedom to live a life honoring God without government coercion or interference (1 Timothy 2:1–2). At the same time, Scripture says that human government is established by God in order to curb human sin (Romans 13:1–4). This means that if a Christian is to consider themselves a libertarian one needs to make sure they are not supporting the anarchistic faction.
There is nothing in the Bible forbidding a Christian from being a libertarian. Nor does Scripture demand believers adhere to libertarianism. Deciding where to draw boundaries around the government’s role is part of our Christian liberty. It’s an issue each believer needs to prayerfully and carefully consider.
I have come to realize I belong politically to a post 9/11 and more modern/moderate form of libertarianism known as Neo-Libertarianism. Advocating a society where individual freedom is maximized, government intervention is minimized, and free market capitalism is promoted, while also supporting some level of social safety net and foreign intervention for the protection of human rights.
The first neo-libertarians used the term in response to the Iraq War. Neo-libertarians proudly set out their reasons for supporting the War on Terror and an effort to secure the freedom of the Iraqi people. Neo-Libertarianism (also spelled Neolibertarianism) is an economically right-wing, moderate libertarian, and culturally right-leaning ideology.
Neo-libertarians believe in economic reforms such as deregulation, neoliberalism, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Neo-libertarians also advocate for Fiscal Conservatism, such as reducing corporate taxes, reducing government spending, and reducing income taxes on people.
Neo-libertarians advocate for Minarchism, calling for limited government power and government involvement in the economy. Neo-libertarians commonly call for the exporting of libertarian and civil values to undemocratic countries. Despite their afomentioned libertarianism, Neo-libertarians commonly advocate for (although limited) government involvement in society, as long as it is to promote greater liberty.
They also allow policies such as the PATRIOT Act as long as they are kept in their lane and used for defense against international, and domestic terrorists. Neo-libertarians advocate for an interventionist foreign policy and strong military in order to overthrow authoritarian regimes and nations that pose a threat to national security. Due to this and its pro-safety net stance it is often considered the child of Libertarianism and Neo-conservatism.
Or a form of Conservatarianism; conservatarians are a small-government, constitutionally obedient movement that advocates for individual freedom and limited federal governance. I do not think conservatarian is a bad name and I welcome/embrace such a political label as another name for neolibertarian.
Neo-Libertarians while unwelcomed by the extreme wing of the broader libertarian movement are none the less a form of libertarian political theory and as worthy of the name as them. At a local level we even have a lot in common. In regards to myself I fully support States/Municipality/Provincial Rights and localism as a means of having a more socially or culturally conservative Nation. If we cannot get culturally conservative legislation federally we can still support it locally. This is something pretty much all minarchists can agree on.
Now let us move onto one more thing that makes me a neolibertarian and that is my support for some form of a social safety net while agreeing with the maxim of minimum and limited government. Unlike the anarchistic leaning and even most minarchy endorsing libertarians. Whom would do away with a government safety net completely. I find no problem with there being both a safety net and unbridled economic freedom at the same time.
I support a libertarian version of a Basic Income ONLY for the unemployed or underemployed. It would not be something that those whom were working full time would get from the Government. So, it would not stifle the Nations work ethic the way a program that includes full time workers would.
If people whom needed it had income then the State can no longer have an excuse to Monopolize things like Health Care or Education. Libertarianism can get its Laissez-Faire world without those in need going without. They can shop around and spend their money on the best provider of their needs in the unbridled and free(d) market that would follow. Meanwhile we can locally work on voting in culturally conservative local options where possible as a bulwark and as treading of the water that is sinking this Ship.
