The non-initiation of force principle, often associated with the non-aggression principle, aligns with biblical teachings that emphasize peace and forgiveness, such as Matthew 5:39, which encourages turning the other cheek. However, the Bible also acknowledges self-defense in certain contexts, suggesting a balance between non-violence and the right to protect oneself and others when necessary.
Natural rights are fundamental rights that individuals possess inherently, typically including life, liberty, and property. This concept, notably articulated by philosopher John Locke, influenced the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson replaced "property" with "the pursuit of happiness" to emphasize individual freedoms.
The U.S. Constitution is often considered to have libertarian elements, as it establishes a government of limited powers and emphasizes individual rights. However, interpretations vary, with some arguing that its application has strayed from these principles over time.
Many libertarians view the Articles of Confederation as more libertarian because it established a weaker central government, allowing for greater state sovereignty and individual freedoms. In contrast, the Constitution strengthened federal power, which some argue can limit personal liberties.
The U.S. Constitution is often considered to have libertarian elements, as it establishes a government of limited powers and emphasizes individual rights. However, interpretations vary, with some arguing that its application has strayed from these principles over time.
Many libertarians view the Articles of Confederation as more libertarian because it established a weaker central government, allowing for greater state sovereignty and individual freedoms. In contrast, the Constitution strengthened federal power, which some argue can limit personal liberties.
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.
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.
Why are the Articles of Confederation considered more libertarian to some Biblical/Christian libertarians than the Constitution?
Because decentralized power is more libertarian than centralized power. It's a lot easier to vote with your feet and move across a state line than it is to leave the whole country.
On a per state scale, yes, the potential existed for tyrannical government. However, what we have now instead is tyrannical government on the national scale; that's not better.
"The AoC created a kind of 'free market' of governments. Sure, individual state governments could be tyrannical - but what would be the incentive? If New York instated an authoritarian dictator, everyone would freely move to Connecticut, which still had a free democracy. Then New York misses out on all those taxes and productivity. New York would have an incentive to lure those people back - i.e. become less tyrannical.
The only way the system would break down is if all states collectively agreed to have the same level of oppression. Maybe they would do that by electing officials and sending them to a collective capitol, and then installing a powerful commander in chief who elects 9 people to interpret the law for the whole nation. Oh... Right."
"The Articles of Confederation needed its improvements and it had some serious problems. However, the Constitution was unnecessary, it was a more tyrannical approach compared to what it could've been. We did not need to scrap the Articles, we did need to amend it though, like we should've. The Anti-Federalists, such as Thomas Jefferson, were right.
Needed Amendments:
States cannot issue their own currencies. All currency ought to be denationalized.
Congress shall have the ability and authority to levy custom duties and excise tax. States shall no longer be permitted to levy custom duties.
65% of the States must agree to amend the Articles of Confederation (8/13).
A simple majority of the States shall vote for a law to pass (7/13).
An executive branch shall exist to pass and veto laws and act as the Commander-in-Chief only in times of war. The executive branch shall be led by a council of five individuals with equal power and a first among these equals; they shall be elected by the majority choice of the States (7/13).
These five individuals shall he made up of the Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of War, an Attorney General, and a first among equals/Chief Executive.
A Judicial Branch shall exist in the form of a Supreme Court to handle disputes among the States in a peaceful manner and to overturn unconstitutional law on the state, local, and federal levels.
There shall exist two houses of the legislative branch; a House of Representatives (w/ proportional representation) and a Senate. Both of these houses shall be bipartisan and absent of political parties (similar to how Nebraska's unicameral is currently).
States cannot make treaties with foreign nations nor shall they regulate commerce. All foreign policy shall be the national government's affair.
A Bill of Rights is to gurantee Life, Liberty, and Property along with due process of the law (this includes laissez-faire capitalism and free trade).
States shall only have the ability to levy excise, sales and use taxes. "Sin taxes" are not permitted; all taxes shall be levied with the sole intent of revenue and revenue only, not deterrence.
There shall exist a national Navy. All other means of defense shall be held by the states and their militias.
States shall not go to war with eachother or any foreign nation. The power of war declaration shall be inherent in the federal government ONLY in the defense of the nation.
No land expansion and annexation shall be permitted.
All law enforcement other than the US Navy shall be the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. No FBI, no 1033 program, etc.
No qualified immunity or additional protections for public officials, such as police unions.
Education shall be privatized.
If law is 'Unconstitutional', states shall be able to nullify it.
Jury nullification is legal."
I personally do not side absolutely on either side of the US Constitution VS Articles debate. The Bible does not teach we are headed in the direction of greater freedom, but less. I did think it good to explain both sides of the issue, however.
