Neo-Libertarianism is consistent right-minarchsm

I wish to put forward that Neo-Libertarianism is consistent right-minarchsm by citing the following from the Neo-Libertarian blog called "Politics and Prosperity." The author uses the term libertarian-conservative now as opposed to neolibertariann, but, he means what I do by Neo-Libertarian.

• R-M reject the non-aggression principle with respect to national defense. They do so not because they favor aggression but because the principle, in its standard interpretation, is a non-action principle. It would not allow a preemptive attack on an antagonistic state that is armed, capable of striking us at any time, and known to be contemplating a strike. R-M, in other words, tend toward hawkishness when it comes to national defense.

• R-M also tend toward a hawkish stance on crime. For example, some R-M have no sympathy for journalists who protect anonymous sources where those sources obtain their information by breaking the law. Other R-M reject the idea that the press should be allowed to print whatever information it may obtain about America’s defense forces, plans, and operation. R-M understand that liberty and the prosperity it brings are unattainable in a lawless, defenseless society.

• R-M are unsympathetic to “political correctness,” arguing that government must not do anything to quell impolite speech or to compensate blacks, women, etc., for the past behavior of those who discriminated against them, because to do so penalizes persons now living who are innocent of discrimination. But more than that, R-M would give individuals and businesses broad latitude in their affairs, penalizing only acts traditionally understood as harmful (e.g., murder, rape, and theft).

• R-M see “rights” like abortion, homosexual “marriage”, euthanasia, "Queer" rights and "gender" ideology as government-imposed social innovations with potentially harmful consequences for civil society. If social custom, as embodied in legislative acts, rejects such things it does so because those things undermine the fabric of society — the bonds of mutual respect, mutual trust, and mutual restraint that enable a people to live and work together in peace.

What is a right-libertarianism/right-wing libertarianism?

 

https://mises.org/mises-daily/left-and-right-within-libertarianism

I have modified my copy of this newsletter removing unneeded incendiary comments about classical laissez-fairists and people in favor of minimal compulsory taxation over complete voluntary taxation. I also removed Rothbards defense of fetuscide (abortion) as the libertarian view. As well as unneeded hatred for people with a more neolibertarian foreign policy over the paleo one. 

Recently, a bewildering and seemingly new phenomenon has burst upon the public consciousness, “right-wing libertarianism.” While earlier forms of the movement received brief and scornful attention by professional “extremist”-baiting liberals, present attention is, almost miraculously for veterans of the movement, serious and respectful. The current implication is “maybe they’ve got something here. What, then, have they got?”

Whatever their numerous differences, all “right-wing libertarians” agree on the central core of their thought, briefly, that every individual has the absolute moral right to “self-ownership,” the ownership and control of his own body without aggressive interference by any other person or group. Secondly, libertarians believe that every individual has the right to claim the ownership of whatever goods he has created or found in a natural, unused state: this establishes an absolute property right, not only in his own person but also in the things that he finds or creates. Thirdly, if everyone has such an absolute right to private property, he therefore has the right to exchange such property titles for other titles to property: hence the right to give away such property to whomever he chooses (provided, of course, that the recipient is willing); hence the right of bequest — and the right of the recipient to inherit.

The emphasis on the rights of private property of course locates this libertarian creed as emphatically “right-wing,” as does the right of free contract, implying absolute adherence to freedom of enterprise and the free-market economy. It also means, however, that the right-libertarian stands foursquare for the “civil liberty” of freedom of speech, press, and assembly. It means that he necessarily favors total freedom for pornography, prostitution, and all other forms of personal action that do not themselves aggress against the property of others. And, above all, he regards conscription as slavery pure and simple. All of these latter positions are of course now regarded as “leftist,” and so the right-libertarian is inevitably put in the position of being some form of “left-rightnik,” someone who agrees with conservatives on some issues and with leftists on others.

While others therefore see him as curiously fluctuating and inconsistent, he regards his position as virtually the only one that is truly consistent, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual. For how can the leftist be against the violence of war and conscription and morality laws while yet favoring the violence of taxes and government controls? And how can the rightist trumpet his devotion to private property and free enterprise while favoring conscription and the outlawing of activities he deems immoral?

While of course opposing any private or group aggression against the rights of private property, the right-libertarian unerringly zeroes in on the central, the overriding aggressor upon such rights: the State apparatus. While the leftist tends to regard the State as an evil enforcer of private-property rights, the right-libertarian, on the contrary, regards it as the prime aggressor on such rights.

In contrast to believers in democracy or monarchy or dictatorship, the right-libertarian steadfastly refuses to regard the State as invested with any sort of divine or any other sanction setting it up above the general moral law. If it is criminal for one man or a group of men to aggress against a man’s person or property, then it is equally criminal for an outfit calling itself the “government” or “State” to do the same thing.

Hence the right-libertarian regards “unjust war” as mass murder, “conscription” as slavery, and — for most libertarians — “taxation” as robbery. From such past mentors as Herbert Spencer (The Man vs. the State) and Albert Jay Nock (Our Enemy, the State), the right-libertarian regards the State as the great enemy of the peaceful and productive pursuits of mankind.

On the extreme-right fringe of the movement, there are those who simply believe in old-fashioned, 19th-century laissez-faire; the major laissez-faire group is the Foundation for Economic Education, of Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, for which many of the middle-aged members of the right-libertarian movement have worked at one time or another.

The laissez-fairists believe that a central government must exist, and therefore that taxes must exist, but that taxation should be confined to the prime “governmental” function of defending life and property against attack. Any pressing of government beyond this function is considered illegitimate.

The great bulk of libertarians, especially among the youth, have, however, gone beyond laissez-faire, for they have seen its basic inconsistency: for if taxation is robbery for building dams or steel plants, then it is also robbery when financing such supposedly “governmental” functions as police and the courts.

If it is legitimate for the State to coerce the taxpayer into financing the police, then why is it not equally legitimate to coerce the taxpayer for myriad other activities, including building steel factories, subsidizing favored groups, etc.? If taxation is robbery, surely then it is robbery regardless of the ends, benevolent or malevolent, for which the State proposes to employ these stolen funds.

Moving on, we come to the Randian and neo-Randian movements, those who follow or have been influenced by the novelist Ayn Rand. From the publication of Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged in 1958, the Randian movement developed into what seemed to be destined as a mighty force. For the emotional impact of Rand’s powerfully-plotted novels attracted a vast following of young people into her “Objectivist” movement.

In addition to the emotional drawing power of the novels, Randianism provided the eager acolyte with an integrated philosophical system, a system grounded on Aristotelian epistemology, and blending it with Nietszchean egoism and hero worship, rationalist psychology, laissez-faire economics, and a natural-rights political philosophy, a political philosophy grounded on the libertarian axiom of never aggressing upon the person or property of another.

Even at its peak, however, the effectiveness of the Randian movement was severely limited by two important factors:

1. One was its extreme and fanatical sectarianism; Randians refused to have anything to do with any person or group, no matter how close in outlook, who deviated by so much as an iota from the entire Randian canon — a canon, by the way, that has a rigid “line” on every conceivable question, from aesthetics to tactics. (An odd exception to this sectarianism, by the way, is the Republican Party and the Nixon administration, which includes several highly placed Randians as advisors.) Particularly hated by the Randians is any former colleague who has deviated from the total line; these people are reviled and personally blacklisted by the faithful. Indeed, Rand’s monthly magazine, The Objectivist, is probably the only magazine in the world that consistently cancels the subscription of anyone on their personal blacklist, including any subscribers who send in what they consider to be unworshipful questions.

2. The second, associated factor is the totalitarian atmosphere, the cultic atmosphere, of the Randian movement. While the official Randian creed stresses the importance of individuality, self-reliance, and independent judgment, the unofficial but crucial axiom for the faithful is that “Ayn Rand is the greatest person who has ever lived” and, as a practical corollary, that “everything Ayn Rand says is right.” With this sort of ruling mentality, it is no wonder that the turnover in the Randian movement has been exceptionally high: attracted by the credo of individualism, an enormous number of young people were either purged or drifted away in disgust.

The collapse of the Randian movement as an organized force came in the summer of 1968, when an unbelievable bombshell struck the movement: an irrevocable split between Rand and her appointed heir, Nathaniel Branden.

Since then, the Randian movement has happily become polycentric; and Branden repaired to California to set up his own schismatic movement there. But the latter is still a movement confined to psychological theories and publications, and to book reviews in the occasionally appearing Academic Associates News. As an organized movement, Randianism, whatever variant, is a mere shadow of its former self.

But the Randian creed still remains as a vital influence on the thinking of libertarians, so many of whom were former adherents to the cult. Politically, Rand rejected taxation as robbery, and therefore illegitimate.

Randian political theory wishes to preserve the existing unitary state, with its monopoly over coercion and ultimate decision-making; it wishes to define its “government” as an institution which retains its State monopoly but gains its revenue only by voluntary contributions from its citizens. Rand infuses into the political outlook of herself and her charges an emotional devotion to the existing American government and to the American Constitution that totally negates her own libertarian axioms.

While Rand opposes the war in Vietnam, for example, she does so on purely tactical reasons as a mistake not in our “national interest”; as a result, she is far more passionate in her hostility to the unpatriotic protestors against the war than she is against the war itself. She advocated the firing of Eugene Genovese from Rutgers, on the grounds that “no man may support the victory of the enemies of his country.” And even though Rand passionately opposes the draft as slavery, she also believes, with Read and the laissez-fairists, that it is illegitimate to disobey the laws of the American State, no matter how unjust — so long as her freedom to protest the laws remains.

Finally, Ayn Rand is a conventional right-winger, as well, in her attitude toward the “international Communist conspiracy.” 

Many neo-Randians, devoted as they are to logical analysis, have seen the logical clinker in Randian political theory; that if no man may aggress upon another, then neither may an outfit calling itself “government” presume to exert a coercive monopoly on force and on the making of ultimate judicial decision. Hence, they saw that no government may be coercively preserved, and they therefore took the next crucial step; while retaining devotion to the free market and private property, this legion of youthful neo-Randians have concluded that all services, including police and courts, must become freely marketable. It is morally illegitimate to set up a coercive monopoly of such functions, and then revere it as “government.” Hence, they have become “free-market anarchists,” or “anarchocapitalists,” people who believe that defense, like any other service, should only be provided on the free market and not through monopoly or tax coercion.

Anarchocapitalism is a creed new to the present age. Its closest historical links are with the “individualist anarchism” of Benjamin R. Tucker and Lysander Spooner of the late 19th century, and it shares with Tucker and Spooner a devotion to private property, individualism, and competition. Furthermore, and in contrast to Read and Rand, it shares with Spooner and Tucker their hostility to government officials as a criminal band of robbers and murderers. It is therefore no longer “patriotic.” It differs from the older anarchist in not believing that profits and interest would disappear in a fully free market, in holding the landlord-tenant relationship to be legitimate, and in holding that men can arrive through reason at objective law which does not have to be at the mercy of ad hoc juries. Lysander Spooner’s brilliantly hard-hitting No Treason, one of the masterpieces of antistatism and reprinted by an anarchocapitalist press, has had considerable influence in converting present-day youth to libertarianism.

It is safe to say that the great bulk of right-libertarians are anarchocapitalists, particularly among the youth. Anarchocapitalism, however, also contains within it a large spectrum of differing ideas and attitudes. For one thing, while they have all discarded any traits of devotion to the State and have become anarchists, many of them have retained the simplistic anticommunism, devotion to big business, and even American patriotism of their former creeds.

What we may call “anarchopatriots,” for example, take this sort of line: “Yes, anarchy is the ideal solution. But, in the meanwhile, the American government is the freest on earth,” etc. Much of this sort of attitude permeated the Libertarian Caucus of the Young Americans for Freedom, which split off or were expelled from YAF at the embroiled YAF convention at St. Louis in August, 1969. This split — based on their libertarianism and their refusal to be devoted to such unjust laws as the draft — led to the splitting off from YAF of almost the entire California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New Jersey sections of that leading conservative youth organization. These groups then formed “Libertarian Alliances” in the various states.

A group of older anarchocapitalists centered in New York founded the Libertarian Forum as a semimonthly, in early 1969, and formed the Radical Libertarian Alliance (RLA), which had a considerable impact in fueling and sparking the 1969 YAF split in St. Louis. Its ideas were propagated among the youth with particular effect by Roy A. Childs, Jr.

Childs had particular effect in converting Jarret Wollstein from Randianism to anarchocapitalism and then to a realistic view of the American State. Wollstein, an energetic young Marylander, had been ejected from the Randian movement, and had formed his own Society for Rational Individualism, publishing the monthly National Individualist. Finally, at the end of 1969, Wollstein’s SRI merged with the bulk of the old Libertarian Alliance members of YAF to form the Society of Individual Liberty, which has become by far the leading organization of libertarians in this country. SIL has thousands of members, and numerous campus chapters throughout the country, and is loosely affiliated with the California Libertarian Alliance, consisting largely of the ex-YAFers and which itself has over a thousand members within the state.

In many ways, California, with the largest right-libertarian population, differs from the movement in the rest of the country. The movement there is led by the California Libertarian Alliance (CLA), of over a thousand members. Led by youthful former YAFers, the CLA is rightist and neo-Randian in tendency, although over the last year and a half it too has abandoned many of its Randian tenets.

"No Pleasure in the Death of the Wicked, Disclosure Update, Giveaways!" ...

How To Get Rid Of Your New Age/Occult Items

Bible Topics: Sadness - The Holy Bible Read Along Audio & Text

The Paula White House Debacle

A.I. How And Why It Will Affect Every Person On The Planet By Ken Mikle ...

Happening Now: But What Does God Say About Israel? (Romans 11:1-12) | Ja...

Satanic Takeover Of The West: Islam & AI

The Apostasy of Israel - Exposition of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 By Ps Mondo...

Rapture Ready Or Not? By Ps Billy Crone I 20 Jul 2025

New Age Infiltration of the Truth Movement (Original Classic)

David Icke Fully DEBUNKED

Jordan Maxwell EXPOSED

President Trump's Policies Are Destined To Increase Inflation

 

Chris Rosebrough - New Apostolic Reformation

Jesus of Testimony

Emergent / Emerging Church Documentary

Church of Tares: Purpose Driven, Seeker Sensitive,

Evidences for a Pre-Trib Rapture | Lee Brainard

Prophecy Timeline—What's Dead Ahead - Andy Woods

10 Things That Lie Ahead

God's Purpose for the Millennium - Dave Reagan

Prophecies that May See Fulfillment Soon! | Bill Salus

Israel, the Middle East, and Trump: John Haller

Prophecy Neglected, Misunderstood, and Misused: Lee Brainard

Didaché - History of the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement

Sun, July 20, 2025 PM - Garrett Boisvert

F4F | Bethel's Un-Holy Spirit

Andy Woods: The Kingdom Is Not Now

Exodus 009

The "Me-ology" of Real Talk Kim

From the Shakers to Charismania: The Same Spirit But Not the Holy One

Mercy Culture’s Prophetic Family Tree: Roots of Deception

David Diga Hernandez: A Kinder, Gentler Word of Faith

Kathryn Krick Is A FAKE And A CROOK: More Proof

The Many Scandals of Aimee Semple McPherson

Exposing Delusional Dream Doctrines

The Luciferian language of the Word of Faith

Behind Closed Doors: The Quiet Coup Inside Today’s Megachurches

Sun, July 20, 2025 AM - Mark DeJager

Neo-Calvinism vs The Bible 036

2 Samuel Complete - The Holy Bible

DARK TO LIGHT & THE PLAN - multi feature about letter after P.

BLINDED BY THE LIGHT - the NARly and Q - antichrist end times deception!...

Can Therapy Change Who You’re Attracted To? w/Dr Nicolosi Jr

PS: Roman Catholicism is an unbiblical heretical road to Hell. I do not endorse said views as Christian or ally with them via sharing this interview. 

Can sexual attraction shift? Can we rewire how past trauma affects us? Dr. Joseph Nicolosi Jr. explores these questions through Reintegrative Therapy—a trauma-focused, evidence-based approach designed for those experiencing unwanted sexual attractions. Critics label it "conversion therapy," but Nicolosi argues it’s something entirely different. In this episode, he explains how resolving deep-rooted trauma can sometimes lead to changes in sexual attractions and why this method is so controversial in today’s world. As the son of a pioneering psychologist, Dr. Nicolosi brings decades of clinical insight to a conversation that challenges post-modern cultural taboos and common assumptions. Dr Nicolosi's website: https://www.reintegrativetherapy.com/

🔥 - “Charismatic Chaos: Unmasking the False Teachings of White, Bullock ...

Why "Seeker Sensitive" Church Is Worse Than You Thought

The Surprising Hidden Spirituality in Progressive Christianity

“Christian” Positivity? The Dangerous Beliefs You’ve Been Sold

Galatians Complete Read Along Bible

The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy

The Word of Faith Movement Exposed

Is Catholicism True?

Zeitgeist (Copycat Christ Theory) Exposed (Original Classic)

Historical Evidence That Jesus Existed

Christian Vs. Oprah: What You Didn’t See in This Controversial Clip.

The Bible, Jesus, and Mushrooms:@GeorgeJanko Challenges Pete Holmes' Bel...

Bizarre Channeled Spirits, Jesus, & Truth—A Biblical Perspective on Aaro...

Napoleon Hill Unmasked: Lies, Scams, Cults, and Occult Beliefs

"The Mistake of Ecumenical Evangelism, The Revival of Christian Manhood"...

Two New Findings That Mohammed Didn't Exist | Dr. Jay Smith

Third Adam: Magick in the Movies - The Neverending Story

Who Is Mari Emmanuel?

Jesus Appears in a Cloud in the Philippines?!?!

The Michael Tait Scandal That Literally Surprised Nobody...

Rich Mullins SCORCHES The Christian Music Industry!!!!

Chip Gaines Goes Radio Silent | Is this a War For His Own Soul?!

This New Form of the Occult - The 4AM Club?!?!

Ezekiel 36:19-33 Born Again Israel

1 John Complete - Read Along Bible

Robert Schuller and the Movement that Rebranded Church: A Deep Dive

Debunking Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories (Part 2)

 

Debunking Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories

 

J.B Hixson Defending Israel

 

My official view on taxation

Compulsory taxation—such as income, corporate, carbon, and capital gains taxes—are theft, taking justly earned money by force. I support any and all measures aimed to eliminate these, replacing them with a voluntary tax, direct payments for services, and crowdfunding. Keeping earnings in Canadians’ pockets will boost saving, investment, production, and consumption, energizing the economy. During the transition, a 5% GST will fund military, police, and courts, acting as a semi-voluntary tax tied to consumer choice.

2 Samuel Chapter 23 - Bible Book 10 - The Holy Bible HD Audio Text

Foundation of N.A.P- Image of God -- Tim Bankes

  

https://medium.com/@timbankes/foundation-of-n-a-p-image-of-god-51f71969e0a2

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Genesis 9:6 ESV

Often, people associate those who believe in liberty, aka libertarians, with hedonistic atheism. They think that to be Libertarian, you must be some wack job who has crazy ideas about what’s morally right or wrong. So, the only party that will accept them is the liberty party. The irony is one of the most fundamental principles in Libertarianism is more justly founded in Christian morals than secular morals.

The Non-Aggression Principle

The non-aggression principle is simply a systematic way of thinking about Criminology or what makes something a crime. I wanted to include it in this early introductory content because of how much it pervades a ‘Christian liberty philosophy. Anytime a conversation comes up that discusses the theory of what makes something a crime or not, libertarians turn to the ever-faithful NAP or Non-Aggression Principle. One of the problems of any theory of how the world should work, like Economics and Politics, is dependence on the data and analysis of what has worked in the past and most importantly, what universal morality can be agreed on by all Mankind?

The problem with this for non-religious or secular people is just understanding what and how of the world, and in this case, economics, civil rights, and politics, but does not help you with the why and the purpose of economies, civil rights, and politics. The purpose of something is rooted in morality, and morality must be just in some sort of Universal Objective Truth. The problem is that Atheism cannot give you morality, let alone Universal Objective Truth. All secular people happen to act good because they are merely copying religious folk. (I know I was an atheist up until I was 16). They are not able to have any grounds for value, purpose, or morality. In their theory, we are in an accidental, impersonal universe that over time, unilaterally generated complex conscience life. Even among that life, most of it is plants or non-human animals that are not complex in their morals and usually only live and have the purpose to survive. So, the question for Atheists is how do they get a moral framework that a Political-Economic theory can build on? For example, how could you develop a theory of the morality of theft if the only moral standard you can muster is “survival of the fittest” from the animal kingdom, where they steal from each other and kill each other with no remorse or legal repercussions or penalties at all? If you have not put it together, you cannot. I know I was an Atheist Nihilist before coming to Christ. Providentially, all hope is not lost, though. Our options are more than just the animal kingdom to gain a moral Objective Truth.

The Bible says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man his blood shall be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Genesis 9:6 While atheism says that humans are merely evolved apes, Christianity says we were designed after the creator God Himself. Due to this exceptional and elevated status of God imagers or God-like creatures, our valve supersedes all other life forms. This verse serves as an objective standard that it is morally evil to put a man to death because, objectively, we are designed by God to image Himself. This text is a sure foundation and footing for objective universal criminology. The NAP clearly agrees with this text, not necessarily in the penalty but in the value of human life. The NAP says all humans have the right to only take part in consensual acts. If something is done without someone’s consent, think of the main four crimes:

1. Theft
2. Murder
3. Rape
4. Battery

Every one of those assumes that the life of your fellow man has equal value to your own. So, the political ideology of “might makes right” and “the end justifies the means” (Utilitarianism is the technical name), which is really just a political take on survival of the fittest, is out the window.

So funnily enough, not only is the Non-Aggression Principle not a secular political theory, but oddly enough, all its bedrock stances of self-ownership, self-government, the NAP, and civil rights like freedom of speech need a universal value equalizer that can bring about universal objective morality that one can build to decipher who the evil criminals are and who the good innocent, law-abiding citizens are. Without the biblical principle of the Image of God in man logically, we would not stop ourselves, like we have in modern times, from constant wars and stop all acts of non-consensual harm to others. The subjective morals of the animal kingdom would prevail, and society would know it would be unsustainable because there would be no deterrent or threat to an evildoer violating the rights of other people. So, is libertarianism secular philosophically? I would say no, it needs religion to establish the moral claim that human life is the most valuable thing, and that a person has a right to his own body and personal property, over anyone else. Thus the foundation for the libertarian principle of the Non-Aggression principle is the Christian Doctrine of the Image of God (Gen. 9:6)

Is the Non-Aggression Principle Biblical? -- James Zecveld

  

https://www.jameszekveld.com/2017/01/05/non-aggression-principle-biblical/

I argued that the NAP was an expression of God’s justice.  In that article, I assumed the biblical nature of the NAP and argued via the doctrine of the “image of God” that the NAP necessarily is an expression of both divine and human justice.

This, of course, begs the question, is the NAP biblical?  Does the Bible teach the NAP?  Literally, the Bible does not teach the NAP.  The Bible never tells us that the most important principle of social co-operation is non-aggression.  I would argue, however, that when we reflect on Biblical teaching, we can demonstrate that the NAP is a reasonable way to summarize biblical teaching on social ethics.

I don’t have time to give a full argument.  Instead, let me give some impressions on biblical teaching

1.  Creation and the NAP (Adam’s vocation and the image of God)

When Adam and Eve are created They are given the command to take dominion.  He is to mix his labor with the land around him and so show ownership over the land.  This work begins with a garden that God himself has planted.  God reserves rights over the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Adam sins by transgressing on God’s property, rather than enjoying the other gifts that God has given him.

Adam and Eve are also given the image of God.  God has imprinted them with righteousness and holiness. They reject that gift by attempting to attain the uniqueness of God on their own terms. In seeking to be like God (This is the temptation of the serpent), they challenge the uniqueness of God and attack his image.  They now deserve the punishment of exile and death. God deals with them according to the NAP.

2. Israel and the NAP (Holy War and the Law)

Israel’s war on the Canaanites seems to violate the NAP. Except we are shown in Genesis 15: 16 that the Israelites will be the hand of God to punish the Amorites for their iniquity.  The Canaanites are condemned justly for their destruction of God’s image in themselves and one another.  We can see some of the cruelty of the Canaanites in Judges 1, where Adoni-Bezek is punished for his cruelty toward 70 kings, with the same indignity he meted out to them.

Further, the ten commandments given to Israel are all in accord with the NAP.  The first four are all an attack and God and the image of God in man.  The 5th commandment condemns ignoring the natural authority of parents; an authority which God has instituted. An attack on that natural authority also constitutes an attack on God’s authority.  The 6th and 8th commandment are obvious; both condemn an attack on somebody’s person or property.  The 7th commandment condemns an attack on the image of God in man through sexual sin.  It also condemns the breaking of the only contract that is grounded in nature. (see 1 Corinthians 6:16) The 9th commandment condemns attacking a person’s life or property through lies in court. Finally, the tenth commandment condemns the heart that desires to do any of these things.

3.  The Nations and the NAP (A lawsuit over  violence)

God does not treat Israel, Judah, and the nations in the same way when it comes to his lawsuit against them.  In Amos 2, Judah is condemned for disobeying the statutes of God.  Israel, or the northern part of the kingdom of David and Solomon, no longer connected to the temple, is condemned for cruelty and for sexual immorality.  The other nations, given in Amos 1, are almost unequivocally condemned for cruelty. We have a similar situation in Nahum, where the nation of Assyria is condemned for cruelty.

4. The Church and the NAP

The church inherits the law of God, as it has been transformed in Christ.  Christ has covered our aggressions against God.  From an earthly perspective, those who confess Christ continually remain in the church.  Those who deny Christ, whether verbally or by demonstrating a love for sin by continuing in and celebrating their sin are removed from the communion of the church by the elders of the church.

5. The Civil Magistrate and the NAP

The role of the civil magistrate is outlined in Romans 13.  The civil magistrate is called to protect the righteous and to bear the sword against the wicked.  The most natural way to interpret this is that the civil magistrate should punish the wicked men who commit violence (coercion) against the righteous.  This violence is exclusively directed at person and property.

I hope these short impressions will help in understanding how the NAP is Biblical.

God and The NAP -- James Zecveld

 

https://www.jameszekveld.com/2016/12/29/god-and-the-nap/

I should probably begin this post by explaining what the NAP is.  The NAP is an acronym for the non-aggression principle. To put it simply: One may not use coercive means against anyone’s person or property. One may use coercion in order to protect a person or his property; or one’s own property.  In Libertarian political theory, the NAP is the central ethical principle for society.

How broadly should the NAP be applied? Libertarian theorists have been careful to limit the NAP to legal matters and legal relationships.  Thin libertarians, as opposed to thick libertarians, teach this. In libertarian theory, scholars have primarily applied the NAP to the civil government (Those who protect the righteous and punish the offender (Romans 13)). This, of course, does not mean that the NAP does not apply to other social spheres.  Rather, the way in which it applies to the political sphere is distinct.  Libertarian theory began as a critique of the civil government.  Therefore, the great majority of libertarian theory works to apply the NAP to the civil government.

God and the NAP

There is work to do.  I would argue that the NAP should apply to every institution.  This is because I believe that the NAP is an expression of God’s nature.

As Christians, who believe that God is intimately involved in the affairs of mankind, we readily ask, does the NAP have a part in the righteousness of God.  Does God deal with mankind according to the NAP? Or does God merely view man as his own property? If he pleases, he may get rid of him?  There is a false dichotomy here, but unfortunately, this is how we often frame the debate. I would argue that if the NAP applies to mankind, it also applies to God.

The image of God.

God created man in his own image.  When we apply a little bit of deductive logic to Ephesians 4:24 we see that this means that man was created in true righteousness and holiness. Paul tells in Ephesians 4: 24, “Put on the new man, the one created according to God’s likeness, in righteousness and purity of the truth.” The new man is Christ, whom God commands us to put on in Galatians 3:27.  God gave us Christ as the true image of God since the image of God in Adam is marred. I won’t argue what exactly this image is, but we can see that God gives it “in righteousness.”

God is righteous.  God created man in righteousness.  The duties that God asks of us are according to the dictates of God’s own nature. If the NAP is an expression of a righteous society, then God will also deal with his people according to the NAP.  God will not demand a righteousness in man that is not expressed in himself.  We, after all, carry the image of God.  Before the fall and later in Christ, man freely shares in the righteousness of God.  God limits himself by the NAP, so that it is natural for man to limit himself by the NAP. (Granted that the NAP is a righteous principle) (We should also not that we use the word “limit” as a human way of talking about the works of a spiritual, and impassible Lord)

Our God limits himself by the NAP according to his nature, his works, and his goals.  God is Creator.  God is our redeemer.  God will glorify his creation. The Creator God has exclusive rights over his creation but he willingly limits himself to treat us according to the nature he has created us with. To understand how this works, we need to have a deeper understanding of how God defines himself in scripture.  We need to understand his work, as he has revealed himself in our Lord Jesus Christ.

If the NAP applies to God, then…

We can go further.  If the NAP defines God’s relation to his creation and our relation to one another under the civil government, that means that the NAP also applies to all our institutions. It has to apply to each institution according to the nature and the goals of that institution. government in the family, government in the church, government in a business, must reflect on how the NAP applies to their institutions.

Civil Disobedience, Rebellion, and the Limited Role of Government (Romans 13:1-7) by Zachary Garris

 

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/civil-disobedience-rebellion-and-the-limited-role-of-government-romans-13-1-7

Civil government is always the subject of debate. There are different types of governments—monarchy, democracy, republic, etc. And there are advantages and disadvantages to each. However, all forms of government can at times become oppressive, and the modern state is no exception to this. This raises the question—how should the Christian relate to government?  

In order to answer this question, we will begin by examining the text of Romans 13:1-7, the foundational passage on civil government. Then we will ask three questions:  

1. Does Paul’s command to “submit” apply to all civil governments?

2. Does Romans 13 ever allow for civil disobedience?

3. Does Romans 13 ever allow for rebellion against government?

We will then close by making the case that Romans 13 teaches that God has designed civil government to have a limited role in society (and therefore should have limited taxes).

Romans 13 and Submission to Governing Authority

Romans 13:1-7 is the locus classicus on civil government. For context, we shall quote it in full:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God, and those that exist have been appointed by God. Thus the one resisting the authority resists the decree of God, and those resisting will receive judgment. For rulers are not a [cause of] fear to good work but to evil. Do you want to not fear the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it. For it is the servant of God to you for good. But if you do evil, fear. For it does not bear the sword in vain. For it is a servant of God, an avenger unto wrath to the one doing evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are ministers of God devoted to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed—tax to whom tax [is owed], revenue to whom revenue [is owed], fear to whom fear [is owed], honor to whom honor [is owed] (Romans 13:1-7, author’s translation).  

Paul commands Christians to “be subject” to the “authorities” (ἐξουσίαις, exousiais). Why? Because (“for”) every governing authority has been appointed by God (Romans 13:1). This leads Paul to conclude that whoever resists “the authority” resists “the decree of God” and will receive judgment (Romans 13:2).

Paul gives a further basis for obeying authorities—“For rulers are not a [cause of] fear to good work but to evil” (Romans 13:3). The “authority” is God’s “servant/minister” (διάκονός, diakonos) “for your good” and an “avenger” (ἔκδικος, ekdikos) unto wrath on the evildoer (Romans 13:4). The authority bears the “sword” (μάχαιραν, machairan), which refers to government’s right to use force to punish lawbreakers (which would include the death penalty).

Paul’s conclusion from all this (“therefore”) reaffirms his opening line that a person must be in “subjection” to the authority because of “wrath” and “conscience” (Romans 13:5). The ESV translates this as “God’s wrath” in verses 4-5. However, “God” is not in the Greek, and it probably refers to the wrath of the authorities—just as “judgment” in 13:2 refers to that of the authorities as God’s servant. (Though “wrath” and “judgment” may refer to both, as God exercises wrath against evil through the wrath of the civil authorities.)

Paul adds that this is also why we pay taxes, because “they” (referring to the authorities) are “ministers” (λειτουργοὶ, leitourgoi) of God “devoted to this very thing” (Romans 13:6). Paul commands Christians give to all what is owed to them, whether taxes, revenue, respect, or honor (Romans 13:7).

 It should be noted that Paul’s command to obey civil authorities in Romans 13 ties back to his command in Romans 12:17-21 for Christians to never practice vengeance. Christians are not to repay “evil for evil” (κακὸν) (Romans 12:17) because civil government is to take care of “evil” (κακῷ) (Romans 13:3).

Christians are to leave “vengeance” to God’s “wrath” (here again “God” is not in the Greek) (Romans 12:19) because the governing authority is an “avenger unto wrath to the one doing evil” (ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργὴν τῷ τὸ κακὸν πράσσοντι) (Romans 13:4). In summary, Christians should leave punishment for evil to God—who uses civil authorities to carry out wrath in this life (though reserving ultimate wrath on Judgment Day).

Does Romans 13 Apply to All Governments?

Romans 13 becomes a challenging passage when we consider that many governments in history have done great evil, killing innocent people and even persecuting Christians (e.g. ancient Rome, Stalinist Russia). Yet Paul says that government is instituted by God and punishes evil, and we must therefore submit. How are we to reconcile these things?

There are at least three possible ways of interpreting Paul’s teaching on “submission” to civil government in Romans 13:1-7: 

1. Submission to government authority applied only to the immediate circumstance of Roman Christians.

2. Submission to government authority applies only if government functions as it should (rewarding good and punishing evil).

3. Submission to government authority applies to all governments, though this is not universal because there are occasional requirements at odds with God’s commands.

View one is unlikely because Paul speaks broadly—“there is no authority except by God, and those that exist have been appointed by God” (Romans 13:1). The challenge for view two is that Paul does not place conditions on submission to government authority. However, his reasoning for submission does assume that rulers punish bad conduct and not good conduct— “For rulers are not a [cause of] fear to good work but to evil. Do you want to not fear the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it” (Romans 13:3). Of course, Paul made this statement in the context of a Roman government that persecuted Christians. So Paul’s statements about punishing evil are likely to be understood as a broad reference to punishing criminal behavior (e.g. theft and murder).

This leaves view three as the best understanding of the passage. (It is also the most common.) In this case, Paul is giving Christians principles for submission to all civil governments, as God has instituted them for civil order. However, this view must be qualified because governments occasionally make requirements directly at odds with God’s law.

Other New Testament passages seem to support this view. In Titus 3:1, Paul says, “Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities.” Again, this is a broad statement about obedience to government. The Apostle Peter also speaks on the subject and echoes Paul:

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor (1 Peter 2:13-17).

Like Paul in Romans 13, Peter says that government is there to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good. Christians are first and foremost to “fear God.” But in doing so, we are also to “honor” those in civil authority, whether an emperor, president, or governor.  

Does Romans 13 Allow for Civil Disobedience?

The universal application of Romans 13 raises questions regarding civil disobedience. While Paul does not address this issue in Romans 13, the rest of Scripture makes clear that there are situations where Christians should disobey the government. The Bible does not teach that we should disobey every unjust law (and there are many such laws in the world), but it does teach that we must disobey government when it requires us to sin.

There are several examples of civil disobedience in Scripture. The Hebrew midwives disobeyed Pharaoh’s wicked command to kill newborn boys (Exodus 1:17; cf. Hebrews 11:23). Queen Esther broke the Persian law by going to King Ahasuerus to plead for the Jews (Esther 4:16).

The prophet Daniel’s three friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) disobeyed Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, when he commanded them to worship his golden image. Nebuchadnezzar threw them into the fiery furnace, and God rescued them (Daniel 3:1-30). Daniel himself disobeyed King Darius’ injunction on prayer to anyone except the king (Daniel 6:7-10). 

In the New Testament, Peter and John disobeyed the Jewish authorities when they told them to stop preaching Jesus. Peter and John said, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heart” (Acts 4:18-19).   

Similarly in Acts 5:29, Peter and the apostles said, “We must obey God rather than men.” Also the Book of Revelation shows throughout that keeping God’s commands is required even when faced with government pressure to disobey.

 The point is that God’s authority is greater than government’s authority. While we are to obey government, we are also to obey God. And His authority trumps government authority. In fact, it is God who gives government authority. As Jesus told the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above” (John 19:11).

Does Romans 13 Allow for Rebellion Against Government?

Civil disobedience is a much simpler question than rebellion. In general, it seems obvious that Christians should not revolt in an attempt to overthrow government. Christians can and should work within the legal means available. But there are situations, such as in Stalinist Russia, where a government becomes so wicked that it would seem wrong for individual Christians to stand there and do nothing. If Christians could institute a better government, why would they not?

Let us consider a real example of so-called “rebellion” from the past, the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783). This war is better termed the American War for Independence. Without getting too deep in the weeds, a strong argument in support of the American colonists was that the act of secession from Britain was legal. The American colonies were under British authority, and the king had a duty to protect the colonies. Since British Parliament was abusing the colonies by legislating for them without providing representation, the king should have stepped in to protect the colonies from this unconstitutional usurpation.

When the king did not intercede at their appeal, he violated his legal duty, and the American colonies had no other choice than to declare independence. (The Declaration of Independence lists the failures of the king as the basis for secession.) Thus, the legal argument is that the Americans had the right to secede under British law. In this case, this was no “revolution” but simply secession—and legal secession at that. So the American act of declaring independence and the ensuing war to fight off the British attempt to prevent secession were legal and therefore morally permissible.  

A similar argument was made by the Confederate States of America in seceding from the United States. The states ratified a Constitution that created the federal government, and thus the states had the right to rescind this ratification. Secession was nowhere prohibited by the Constitution, and the Southern states were merely exercising their legal right. Of course, the North did not want to allow secession, and a war ensued.

Thus, the question of “rebellion” is more complex than following a simple command to “submit” to the government that is in power. There are legal and ethical duties that government officials have towards the people. Further, there are different structures of government. In a federal republic like the United States, there are both states and a federal government (which is a creation of the states). If the federal government oversteps its bounds and violates the Constitution, the states have a duty to check the federal government. Apart from voting representatives out of office, the only legal recourse is state nullification or secession.  

There is much to this issue in the history of the church. John Calvin and later Reformed thinkers developed the doctrine of the lesser magistrates, which holds that lesser magistrates have the duty to interpose on behalf of the people before tyrannical government. Thus, a prince should resist a tyrannical king. And in the modern United States, a state governor should resist a tyrannical federal official—whether president, Congress, or the Supreme Court. The historical precedent for this in the United States is called nullification (or interposition). Thomas Jefferson and James Madison advocated this practice, and it was carried out by South Carolina in the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s.

While this discussion focused on internal rebellion against government, there is biblical precedent for rebellion against foreign oppressors. The judges delivered Israel from their plunderers (Judges 2:16), and David and others joined in putting foreign armies to flight (Hebrews 11:32-34).  

The Limited Role of Civil Government

Though Romans 13 focuses on the Christian’s relationship to civil government, we do learn something about the role of civil government in Paul’s reasoning in the passage. One of the reasons we are told to submit to government is that government punishes evil conduct and praises good conduct. The government uses force (“bears the sword”) and carries out wrath on wrongdoers. Thus government has a role in punishing crime. And civil government is good in so far as it does what God intended it to do, namely punish evil.

Civil government has a legitimate role in society. However, civil government has a limited role in society. Paul says nothing about government providing charity or education or any sort of welfare program. God instituted civil government to restrain evil, not to usurp the roles of other institutions such as the church or family.

Thus, Romans 13 supports what some call the “protectionist” view of government, in contrast to the “perfectionist” view of government. Civil government is to protect people’s basic rights (life, liberty, property), which are rights that crime interferes with. Therefore, government should step in and punish crime. In this regard, Romans 13:1-7 is consistent with Genesis 9:4-6, where God instituted the death penalty as a means of dealing with murder in a society.  

What About Taxes?

Paul concludes his teaching on government in Romans 13 with a command to pay taxes. We want to avoid the wrath of government and also maintain a clean conscience. So we pay taxes to civil government because “they are ministers of God” (Romans 13:6). We are to pay “taxes” to whom taxes are owed and “revenue” to whom revenue is owed (Romans 13:7). “Tax” (φόρος, phoros) was a direct tribute tax (Luke 20:22), whereas “revenue” (τέλος, telos) was an indirect tax, such as a custom (Matthew 17:25).  

Of course, Paul ties taxes here to a civil government that punishes crime. This means that taxes should go to fund the criminal justice system—namely police, judges, governors, and the like (and implicitly military, which protects citizens from wicked foreign invaders). However, Paul says nothing about taxes for food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and any other government program. While Christians should pay taxes so that they are not dragged off to prison, they should voice opposition to the current tax scheme. The concept of a government redistributory scheme is entirely foreign to Scripture.

Some Christians cite Jesus’ words to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” as an all-out endorsement of government and taxation (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). However, Jesus says no such thing. The Jewish leaders were seeking to trap Jesus among the Romans (who required the tax) and the Jews (who opposed Roman taxation). Jesus outsmarted His opponents by making reference to Caesar’s picture on the coins—“Whose likeness and inscription is this?” (Matthew 22:20). The answer was “Caesar’s.” So Jesus responded, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

This was not a wholesale endorsement of Roman government, nor was this a discourse on the morality of taxation. (Elsewhere the Bible indicates that taxation above 10% is oppressive; cf. 1 Samuel 8:14, 17.) Jesus was simply instructing His followers to pay taxes. This is fully in agreement with Paul’s words in Romans 13:1-7. The government may do wrong, and we may work to change this. But Christians are to stay out of trouble. Pay taxes to the government, and obey God’s commands.

Conclusion

Paul in Romans 13 commands Christians to submit to governing authorities. God is sovereign over government and instituted the one we live under. We are to pay taxes and do good so as to avoid punishment and keep a clean conscience. However, there may be times where we must disobey government because it requires something at odds with God’s law or persecutes believers. In Paul’s reasoning on civil government, we learn that the purpose of government is to punish wicked conduct. Thus civil government is legitimate, but it should have a limited role in accordance with God’s design.  

Of course, Romans 13 does not prohibit Christians from influencing civil government. Rather, it is expected that when the church grows in a society, the government of that society will increasingly reflect God’s design for government outlined by Paul—namely that civil rulers are to punish wicked behavior. The church that does not seek to influence all aspects of a society, including civil government, is ignoring an important task. Christ was given all authority over the earth, and He has commanded the church to disciple the nations (Matthew 28:18-19). A nation under the authority of Christ will carry out civil government in accordance with the teachings of Christ.