From One Christian to Another, On Human Liberty

(This essay is an excerpt from an email that I sent to a fellow Christian Libertarian on an email discussion list. The recipient had previously expressed their own doubts about the Non-Aggression Principle, and the philosophical steps to arriving at such a conclusion, as well as the Principle's compatibility with scripture. The name of the other party is withheld, but the principles expressed stand on their own.)

Philosophy is simply logic applied to various "problems." I believe, as a Christian, that God imbued us with logic by creating us "in His image." I believe this is what separates us from the animals—abstract thought, and the ability to willfully glorify our Creator, as breathed into our dust-composed bodies.

Also, you should be aware that the scriptures only condemn vain philosophies in Colossians 2:8:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

It is clearly incorrect to interpret this to mean that all philosophy (philo + sophia = "love" of "wisdom") is abhorrent before God. We are to be Bereans, and to knowledgably critique the positions of others to determine if they are consistent with God's will as revealed through general revelation ("...written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." 2 Corinthians 3:3) and in special revelation ("All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Now, if someone misinterprets God's word due to some predisposition (often due to human traditions, as noted above), we are to gently correct them. "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:20-21)

Now, I would not presume to judge you for your beliefs about the state, but I would tell you that I believe that it is most consistent for a Christian to be an anarcho-capitalist. I know that murder is wrong. There is no scripture passage that provides an exception for government officials. Therefore, collateral damage, wrongful execution, etc. are sinful and should not be directly or indirectly supported by believers.

We know that prostitutes were viewed by Christ as sinners, but as sinners who should be shown love and mercy. We know that our Lord defended at least one such sinner from an angry crowd, stating in John 8 that "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." The crowd's response? "And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst." Surely, she was a sinner, and Jesus told her to go and sin no more. He treated her with love and concern, seemingly not just concern for the community, but for her. So from this passage I take it that Jesus did not teach the use of violence against prostitutes. This jives with the non-aggression principle.

Now, of course, the next biggest scumbags (at least in Jesus' times) seemed to have been the tax collectors ("publicans"). For this offense, unlike with prostitution (a victimless crime), restitution seems to have been in order, as per Zacchaeus. The commonly cited "render unto Caesar" was a trick answer to a trick question (Luke 20:20 states that they wished to "take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.") It is not a mandate to pay taxes. It is a mandate to support property rights. Of course, with that particular response (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; render unto God that which is God's) it is not clear that anything is Caesar's—at least Jesus doesn't say that anything is. Certainly we assume that everything does belong to God, therefore rendering the question of taxation moot.

In the ultimate scheme of things, it doesn't matter what we "think" works best. It only matters that we abide by the express commands of our Lord and Creator. Even tithes are not to be taken forcibly, "for God loveth a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:7). Why then should taxes be seen as legitimate? It doesn't matter if you or I think the government can do the best road-building and maintenance—the apostle Paul clearly destroys consequentialist ethics in Romans 3:7-8 when he states, "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just." In other words, it is not okay to commit evil acts to bring about good in the future. This consequentialism is clearly condemned in scripture, and it is the sole basis for taxation. In whom is your faith: the traditions of man (taxation) or the divinely inspired words of the scriptures?

Note too the express condemnation of government in 1 Samuel 8:4-20. I include a portion of that passage below:

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."

I will not reject our Lord's divine providence for my life, so I will never pledge my loyalty to anything other than Him and His instructions. Since I would not will that anyone use force against me (barring my own commission of a property/violent crime), as an adherent to that faith which states, "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (James 2:8; also in Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, etc.), I must never aggress against another.

In closing, the non-aggression principle is 100% in keeping with God's word, so far as this humble reader can tell. I pray that you will see my above note (which I sent only to you, not the list, as per Matthew 18:15-17) not as a castigation of an ideological opponent, but rather as an appeal from one believer to another.

Immigration: Blessing or Curse?

(The Center for Faith in Politics posted a link to this story from National Review, and posed some questions related to the subject matter of that story. They asked, "Is immigration good for the country? Christian? Just another form of hospitality?" My response follows below.)

First of all, let me say that the federalization (and subsequent foreign deployment) of National Guard troops is despicable, and makes a mockery of our defensive abilities here domestically.

Let me say that as libertarian I am all for private forces (read: the people) defending their own stuff (or the property of individuals who have granted them the authority to act on their behalf) from aggressors. I have corresponded with Michael Gaddy of the Minuteman organization, and I discovered that his motivations for his involvement we largely based on the fact that home invasions, livestock theft and killing, and property destruction (i.e. fence cutting, etc.) are rampant along the US-Mexico border.

If the government is to exist, one of its central functions must be to protect property owners from aggressors. I do, however, believe that the government's immigration policies are to blame for this problem. Immigrants would not be crossing private lands at nearly the frequency at which they presently are doing so if immigration were unrestricted.

Focusing on national security for a moment, let me explain why an open immigration policy would likely augment our safety, rather than undermine it. Presently we have a whole black market industry in place where "coyotes" are paid a fee in exchange for their services in assisting would-be immigrants in crossing the border undetected. Were it not for the illegal status of most immigration activities, this cottage industry would not have developed at nearly the speed. Thus, any ill-intentioned foreigners who wish to cross undetected into our land to do us harm can easily blend in with the crowd of other illegals, and are far less likely to be identified than if they immigrated through a more efficient, less secretive, public right-of-way (roads, etc.).

With regards to the economic effects of immigration, we often hear complaints of "jobs lost" to immigrants. This has been a common "talking point" for the anti-immigration set since the "Know-Nothing" party of years past. This concern is mistakenly held by many. I say mistaken for a simple reason. This idea is based upon the assumption that there are a fixed, or in some sense limited number of jobs potentially available in this country. This is not so.

When an immigrant comes to this country, he or she is not simply taking a job, but also buying gasoline, paying rent, and paying the asking price on consumer goods. All of these activities
create wealth, and, consequently expand the economy which of course results in, you guessed it, more net jobs.

An additional benefit of this influx is that it drives down production costs for manufacturers, farmers, and other producers due to decreased labor costs. This drives down the price of consumer goods for all Americans, and, additionally, makes American enterprises far more globally competitive, which in turn brings in more business from around the world. All of this is good for America.

On an ethical level, I must cry foul at the immigration opponents' desire to use force against immigrants. What we are talking about here is, effectively, curtailing free exchange between labor and employers. Immigrants are not trespassers simply for coming into this country. They are invited laborers. By whom are they invited? By those who wish to employ them, to sell them goods, or to rent or sell them real property. This is not an explicit invitation of course, but money speaks louder than words. By arguing for a partial or total prohibition on immigration, we are talking about arresting people who are generally living in rented appartments, working jobs for grateful employers, and buying things from grateful business proprietors. Whence cometh the trespassing?

Of course, the anti-immigration lot are mostly concerned about protecting the cultural status quo. They do not want to see signs in Spanish, to hear people speaking Spanish in "their" country, or, frankly, to have any incentive to learn another tongue. These people think of America in terms of what they want to see and hear, not what rights we ought to recognize. They are effectively trying to exercise property rights over property that is not theirs. Oft-heard claims of increased crime rates in border areas are neatly circular, since this often refers to the crime of illegal immigration. Let's be honest here: are we really concerned that people who are willing and able to save up some capital, travel sometimes thousands of miles, endure untold hardships, and leave their home and family, all for the hope of better opportunity in the "land of plenty" are going to, upon arrival in their eden, suddenly become irresponsible criminals?

This issue, by the way, would be far easier to deal with if we didn't have immense tracts of land which presently "belong" to the government via the Bureau of Land Management, et al. If all land was either privately owned or available for homesteading, the trespassing claims would be far easier to adjudicate. Unfortunately, land which should be open to homesteaders is instead retained by a government which has done little (in most instances) to improve the land, and which, therefore, has no common-law claim to the land.

In conclusion, immigrants, both legal and illegal, contribute to our economy and to our standard of living. I welcome them. As a Christian, I welcome the cultural education that each immigrant is capable of bestowing upon me, because that makes my compliance with Christ's great commission far easier.