Can a Christian be a libertarian?

Being both pro-life, and libertarian, is not a contradiction in terms.

"Now had he said that about Iraq, I could have heartily agreed - since they presented no imminent threat to the USA."

He did say it...about nine years ago. Can any other Republican candidate say that?

Nice work dangerous2.

A 30-second Google search would show that his son was named 'Randal' (not Rand), he grew up being called Randy, and that his wife called him Rand as a nickname. It stuck and the rest is history...

Peace be with you.

"although well-known Randian Alan Greenspan took a shot at it, and plunged us into the worst fiscal disaster since the Great Depression."

Ironic. Governmental control of interest rates to pump up a housing bubble is not a particularly 'libertarian' thing to do. And having a governmental backstop to guarantee private home loans isn't either. Ron Paul has been critical of actions like these for years. But I guess that doesn't fit into your narrative so well, does it?

Peace be with you.

The Founders (with the painful exception of slavery) were more or less libertarians, and the First Amendment has been crucial to the ability of Christians to worship Christ as they see fit without governmental interference. So you see, man's Rule of Law is important as it allows us to follow God's law, without fear of persecution.

Peace be with you.

Peace be with you Brother John.

Yes, they can be. I know this because I am one.

Peace be with you.

So your argument is:

The government should steal (tax) to prevent theft.
The government should kill (war, police) to protect life.
And the government should coerce us to protect our rights.

Can you see the contradictions?

>Libertarianism is not for the complete abolishment of governments or taxation. Not even anarchism is for either of those.

Yes, anarchists call for the complete abolishment of states and taxation. Libertarianism is divided into two main camps: statists (those who believe government is necessary for at least some roles) and anarchists (those who believe no government is necessary). Rothbard, and now Hoppe have written extensively on what is known as anarchocapitalism.

Since Japan attacked America in retaliation for US sanctions against Japan, and US military aid for Japan's enemies, and that Germany declared war on America when its ally Japan did, because the US was giving military aid to the enemies of Germany (who declared war on Germany first) I don't understand how you can use these events to argue against non-interventionism.

Since Japan attacked America in retaliation for US sanctions against Japan, and US military aid for Japan's enemies, and that Germany declared war on America when its ally Japan did, because the US was giving military aid to the enemies of Germany (who declared war on Germany first) I don't understand how you can use these events to argue against non-interventionism.

“I am getting tired of the offhanded smearing of religion that has long been endemic to the libertarian movement. Religion is generally dismissed as imbecilic at best, inherently evil at worst. The greatest and most creative minds in the history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious, most of them Christian.”

– Murray Rothbard

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Libertarianism does not reduce society - it reduces the state.

>Libertarianism is strctly an idea of man and has absotely nothing to do with.

Christian Republican, Christian Democrat, Christian Socialist, Christian Communist, etc. are equally oxymorons, then.

As Pastor at Peaceful Assembly Church (organized in Grafton, NH) I approve the message of libertarianism. Libertarians may not agree on the amount of treasure – and much more importantly, power & authority - which should be handed over to “Caesar,” but are consistent in knowing there is a limit. Dr. Ron Paul makes it clear he does not want to run other people's lives. It is clear Dr. Paul does not want to be a King.

Libertarianism is strctly an idea of man and has absotely nothing to do with. The whole duty of man is to obey God and Keep his commandments. The Libertarian view was established to protect the intereste of men NOT to advance the will of GOD. Mixing scriptures regarding the Law of Moses(OT) vs the Law of Christ (NT)is a common ploy by those who try to use the word of God(out of context) to advance their position. God sent his son to dave man from sin and (spiritual) death PERIOD. The Libertarian view would support the confederate states to maintain the brutal slave market. Ron Paul and all who support him are not Christians. The trem "Christian Libertarian" is an oxymoron

Anybody ever notice that if a bird does not use both their left and right wing, all that they do is crash and burn, so to speak.

I have serious apprehensions about Ron Paul's anti-semite supporters. Anti-semitism is, of course, not libertarian. It is unequivocally evil and can not be tolerated in any political platform or agenda.That being said, I think that libertarianism is not really complete as a political philosophy. It exagerrates the importance of the individual to the point that the important functions of society are reduced.

True, libertarians believe in what they like. We argue about almost everything. But, we do all agree on at least one thing: using force or fraud on others unless it's self defense, is morally wrong. Jesus told us to also act this way, treating others as we would like to be treated. So, Norman Horn is entirely correct. As to why "evangelical" Christians seem to be pro-war, I'm baffled. It's possible that they've never had a real Christian to vote for, thanks in part to the anti-Christian mass media. I'm thankful that we really don't need the mass media anymore to tell us what to believe. Your choice in 2012 is clear. Continue to vote for evil, lesser or not, your choice. Or vote for a reversal of our current corrupt government. Note that the people screaming the loudest about Ron Paul are the very ones that have the most to lose if the money party is raided. They're getting scared. Do the right thing. Let's absolutely terrify them.

Walking fossil hits the nail on the head - and perhaps why he never actually accomplishes anything in Congress. Everyone lives in a co-dependent world of compromise and particularly in Congress - which the Tea Party has recently tied in knots with their infantile obstructionism.

The Tea Party and various conspiracy-oriented rightwing fringe groups seem to be Paul's staunchest supporters. This might give us a hint of what government under Ron Paul would be like - a stubborn old fart that can never say 'yes'.

His isolationist tendencies are hugely counter-productive in a geo-political sense. This may be his most serious deficiency. The guy seems devoid of any leadership qualities whatsoever, but remains fixated on simplex fantasies in a complex world. The last 'rugged' individualist standing in the halls of Congress.

Now, where may we view that perfectly uncontrolled 'free market' economy in all it's splendor? Nowhere, although well-known Randian Alan Greenspan took a shot at it, and plunged us into the worst fiscal disaster since the Great Depression - and now the Ayn Rand sycophants in government want even fewer controls and no corporate taxation at all.

You're absolutely right - he's quite entertaining in a Herman Cain sort of way.

PS. I think Buckley's Catholicism informed his politics from start to finish, not unlike Pat Buchanan. Gore Vidal took Buckley apart on a regular basis - it was a thing of beauty.

A "TRUE" Libertarian as defined by Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard are anti-Religion. Ayn Rand was an atheist. She was particularly hard on Christianity. The Libertarian-ism we talk about today is a cherry-picked self serving kind that was diluted by William F Buckley when he created Conservatism. Ayn Rand made it clear, one cannot be both a Libertarian and a Christian. But no one wants to talk about that. She is cherry-picked for self-serving agendas.

Buckley took three disparate systems (Libertarian-ism, Traditional Values, and anti Cold war Militarism) that were all anti-liberal but didn't agree with each other, he united them against the common enemy "Liberalism" and combined them to create conservatism we know today.At the time, Libertarians were against the social conservatives and the Militarists. So Buckley Cherry-picked and redefined them and created the "New Right' of conservatism as laid out in the book "The Conservative Mind" written by his brother-in-law - Russell Kirk.

These Libertarians had a real problem with Social Conservatives who wanted to use government to impose moral values on people. Therefore, traditionally they are not compatible. But, since conservatism is a movement, it is always evolving and redefining itself. It is big on theory, ideas and think tanks to justify the movement. You can retrofit and rationalize anything you want.

As a side note, Ron Paul is a true old School Libertarian. Regardless if you agree with him or not, he is a walking Fossil of politics past. That is what makes him interesting and entertaining.

Then had we followed Ron Paul's isolationist ideology in WWII, he would either be speaking to us in German or Japanese and the world would be an entirely different place today.

Now had he said that about Iraq, I could have hearily agreed - since they presented no imminent threat to the USA. In this day and age, it's simply not possible to ignore what's going on elsewhere in the world.

North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran are all areas that need close watching. In fact, they'll all potentially far more troublesome than Iraq ever was. Paul's isolationist stance just will not fly today.

Ron Paul is also spurious.

Nothing you listed couldn't be handled naturally in an unregulated market.

left-wing and right-wing are just divisive labels

Unfortunately, Ayn Rand's biggest fan among important political figures is Alan Greenspan (they were personal friends during her life, and he frequently contributed to her newsletter). No one ever did more to ruin an economy through a misplaced faith in the omniscience of free markets.

"what would you enforce them to do that an unregulated market could not naturally take care of?"

Fraud. Usury. Monopolization. Collusion. And Paul's favorite: fractional reserve lending.

Ayn Rand is right-wing by the nature of her idea that there are different classes of people, and there should be. She believes in supermen that should have power, and the rabble masses that should not have any power at all.

Left-wing means everyone is equal. Right-wing means people are divided in classes. It's as basic as that.

Ron Paul has said we should not have been involved in the European theater of war during WW2.

Can a Christian be a libertarian? Yes. Should a Christian be a libertarian? Personal choice.

However, let's look at some of these Biblical references in this article: "God’s warning against unjust “weights and measures” in Leviticus 19 is a warning not to tamper with the market ecosystem of money and trade."

Wrong. This is a Law established by the existing theocratic government to prevent private business from cheating. Libertarians like to use the term "force or fraud" to describe the government's only function, and it would apply to the government preventing private business fraud in weights and measures, but some more anarcho-capitalists, like Ron Paul's favorite Ayn Rand, don't agree. But there are no market forces (profit motives) that prevent corporate fraud. This pericope certainly isn't about government manipulation of markets, unless the government was defrauding consumers.

This idea that fiat money is the same as altering the "quality of money" then Paul's ideal gold standard is also against the scriptures if you were to mine gold. Fiat money is always the same price: exchange one dollar for one dollar. It is the antiquated gold standard that allowed money's value to be changed because it would be changed compared to something that wasn't a dollar.

Ron Paul contends that we shouldn't have a common currency, but that every bank (which isn't regulated) should provide their own currencies, and the market will decide which currency to use.

The part about foreign policy doesn't have anything to do with libertarianism. Socialists can similarly have the same foreign policy.

The part about “The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous… God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.” ignores Romans 13 which says governments "are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." So the law doesn't make someone virtuous, it brings God's wrath on wrongdoers.

It's ironic that Ron Paul's favorite political philosopher, Ayn Rand (he named his son after her)

What would today's world be like if we had continued to sit on our hands while Hitler was trying to take over the civilized world?

Nazi Germany declared war on the US shortly after Peal Harbor, December 11, 1941 to be a little more precise. That makes it a 'defensive' war by definition, your point is spurious.

Tell us how you determined that Gog is Russia and Magog China, and 'Gomer' is Germany.
You don't know s h i t about Germany, I can tell you that. They will never align themselves with Russia, don't you know history at all, you sure claim to.

I believe one thing we can agree with is that America is in a whole bunch of trouble. Secondly, I call to remind all of you, if you believe in the Bible and profess to be Christians, God teaches all not to be in debt, not to judge. We all have the right to agree or disagree, and that we will all do. Thank God we still can. For those of you whom need some brushing up on the Bible, I direct you to read the book of Ephesians. For a bit of direction while you read this book, the 'horn' represents government; Persia is now Iran; Gog is Russia; Magog is China; Gomer represents Germany. The EU is failing, Germany has already begun to print the Deutschemark, they are aligning themselves with Russia. Iran is provoking America & Israel; Russia & China have already warned against any strikes. America is broke - just like the Roman Empire was when they printed their own fiat currency - and BTW - out of 900 yrs history of paper currency, not one fiat paper currency ever succeeded. Back to Russia - when the iron curtain fell, Russia was broke. They are now debt free, have alot of oil and gold. Where do we stand? America is broke. Do we really need to be the world's police or do we begin to pay attention to ourselves? As a Libertarian Christian, I believe in a strong defense, so does Dr. Paul. So what is our defense? Where does our money come from? Why does Israel have to ask, "mother may I?" before they are permitted to defend themselves? Let Israel do what they know is best for Israel - they don't need our permission. Why is Congress silent as our rights are stripped away? Have you ever counted how many offices your US Senators have in your respective states? How much is that costing you? What about all the Congressional Districts? It's like this - what if you started using credit cards to pay your mortgage and/or rent? How long can you go on before you are left with nothing? America is already there. We have repeated the failures of the Roman Empire. It's time to stop the bick

It has primarily been statist communist countries who create starvation. Your definition of right wing would consider North Korea, the USSR, and many other communist countries to be right wing. That is an extremely unorthodox view of what it means to be right wing.

Every single definition of right-wing and left-wing that I've heard prior to yours considers communism to be extreme left-wing, rather than the defining characteristic of what it means to be right-wing.

Then you and I have different views of what ritewing means. Fundamentally, the most important moral dimension of a political disposition is what the person things society is obilgated to do with the poor that are an inevitable product of capitlalism.

Ritewingers believe that the Right to Starve is chief among all rights. Morally normal people disagree.

I just do not understand the package this guy represents. I like and respect his basic instincts and many of his positions but some are just downright alarming to me, starting with, I am definitely not a "peace at any price" person.

I am not comfortable with simple solutions to complicated issues. Example: He opposes war at any level only supporting self defense, i.e. we should NEVER INITIATE a military action. By this position, how can he lead our country and not be willing to take whatever action is necessary to defend us against a serious enemy who is preparing to eventually harm our country - or even other innocents in the world? I do not mean to include a gnat who is just blustering and incapable of accomplishing any real harm.

What would today's world be like if we had continued to sit on our hands while Hitler was trying to take over the civilized world? What would happened if we had not strongly stood our ground with the USSR? What can happen tomorrow if China's military reaches unstoppable maturity and goes aggressive? Lets try the insidious and insane monsters lurking in the middle east, North Korea, etc. Eventually, one of them will go for us.

Nothing dangerous can be resolved with simple solutions. I like the idea of speaking with a strong, firm, and gentle voice but "carry a big stick" and be sure that your enemy understands without question that we are united and strong enough to use it if threatened. This does not include occupying another nation solely for our own economic interests.

Publicly stating a defend only policy is a flag of surrender. Paul is not my man but I will vote for him if I have no other option to Obama.

Self Defense does not mean that we have to be unprepared for an attack against us. Self defense doesn't mean that we completely skip the gathering of intelligence to assess possible threats.

We hardly know or want to harm countries, yet we do harm them anyways. Ron Paul's policy is that if we hardly know or want to harm a country, that we shouldn't harm them.

They don't "hate us because we're free." How many enemies does Switzerland have? They hate us because we are the bully of the world, the policeman of the world. They hate us because we have military bases everywhere around the world.

That extremely dangerous idea set forth by Republicans that people "hate us because we're free" is far far more dangerous than Ron Paul's foreign policy idea of non-interventionism.

large23220 - Ayn Rand activists are not right wing. Ayn Rand is atheistic, and her supporters tend to be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-military, anti-charity, anti-war on drugs, anti-corporate welfare, and many more views which are incompatible with the right wing.

My view of the right wing is that they are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-military, pro-charity, pro-war on drugs, pro big business & corporate welfare, etc. I guess my definition of right wing is very different from yours.

Well, dammit, now I have to go research more on American Libertarianism.

I appreciate your reasoned approach and presentation of facts. However, I disagree with how you characterize "most libertarians." Most American 'libertarians," and American libertarians comprise most libertarians, have been proselytized by right-wing, reactionary Randian activists.

They were on my college campus winning souls for Sacred Unfettered Commerce. They have been heavily involved in political "evangelism" just like the ritewing church has been since the 70s.

I just don't believe that "most libertarians" hold to a historical view of libertarianism, any more than I believe that most people who think they are "Christians" ever consider the ACTUAL teachings of Jesus Christ.

I just do not understand the package this guy represents. I like and respect his basic instincts and many of his positions but some are just downright alarming to me, qualifying with, I am definitely not a "peace at any price" person.

I am not comfortable with simple solutions to complicated issues. Example: He opposes war at any level only supporting self defense, i.e. we should NEVER initiate a military action. By this position how can he lead our country and not be willing to take whatever action is necessary to defend us against a serious enemy who is preparing to eventually harm our country - or even other innocents in the world? I do not mean to include a gnat who is just blustering and incapable of accomplishing any real harm. Or, to occupy another country for our economic interests.

What would today's world be like if we had continued to sit on our hands while Hitler was trying to take over the civilized world? What would happened if we had not strongly stood our ground with the USSR? What can happen tomorrow if China's military reaches unstoppable maturity and goes aggressive? Lets try the insidious and insane monsters lurking in the middle east, North Korea, etc. Eventually, one of them will go for us. They hate us and we hardly even know them or want to harm them.

Nothing dangerous can be resolved with simple solutions. I like the idea of speaking with a strong, firm and gentle voice but "carry a big stick" and be sure that your enemy understands without question that your are willing and strong enough to use it. Publicly stating a defend only policy is a flag of surrender.

Paul is not my man but I will still vote for him if I have to.

Gerry Johnson

well said

The libertarian stance is that regulations on corporations should not be written by corporations, or written by those on the payroll of corporations.

Our current "protections" are protections of big corporations from small ones, they are not protections of individuals from corporations.

A smaller government would be a government that protects individuals from corporations, not a government that is a weapon used by corporations against individuals and competing businesses.

what would you enforce them to do that an unregulated market could not naturally take care of?

But would not a smaller government have less regulation and little to no enforcement power over them?

The reason it is necessary for that question to even be asked is that corporations manipulate big government to get what they want.

I do have a question: What, in your view, is the libertarian stance on the government protecting the rights of individuals from corporations?

I don't get it, you call libertarianism a safe harbor for nuts, and then you state the libertarian view on why government exists, and you provide no argument against this viewpoint. And then you call libertarians nuts again.

Are you calling yourself a nut? Or do you consider the libertarian view on the duty of government to be self-evident in showing how they are nutcases?

Maybe its because I'm a libertarian, but stating that libertarians think that government exists to protect our rights from being infringed by other people doesn't seem to me to be a convincing argument that libertarians are nutcases.

You'll need to provide a bit more of an argument to prove your point.

Thanks for clearing that up about Objectivism. I was under the impression that most libertarians were influenced by Ayn Rand.

A few important things:

1) Objectivism is a subset of libertarianism. Most libertarians are not Ayn Rand libertarians.

2) Pro-capitalist libertarians are a majority of libertarians in the US, but do not comprise all libertarians. In Europe, libertarians tend more towards the libertarian socialist and anarchist viewpoints and probably a majority of European libertarians are not pro-capitalism.

3) Ron Paul is not representative of all libertarians, and there are many libertarians who disagree with him on plenty of issues.

4) Libertarianism is neither on the left side or the right side of the political spectrum.

5) Libertarianism is not for the complete abolishment of governments or taxation. Not even anarchism is for either of those.

6) There is a difference between approving of a behavior, and not believing it is the government's duty to get involved when an individual or country engages in such behavior. Libertarians are not interventionist, but that does not mean that they support human rights abuses. Its just not the US government's job to prevent human rights abuses in every country around the world. Its not the US government's job to keep people from engaging in behavior that harms themselves but not others.