Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Christianity

Prepared for the California State Libertarian Convention at the
Ontario Airport Marriott Hotel, February 14-17, 2003
by Kevin Craig
2002 Libertarian Party Congressional Candidate
41st District, California
www.KevinCraig.US

The overall goal of this CD is to help the Libertarian Party campaign more effectively, change more minds, and win more elections. An immediate strategy to accomplish this goal is to court the Christian vote.

In my experience as an agitator and LP candidate, I have found Christians to be wary of the Libertarian party because they suspect the LP has a "hidden agenda" of Anarchism. "Tax cuts" are OK, but Christians are patriotic and moral and fear that Libertarians, once in office, would seek to abolish government altogether.

The way to answer this objection, I propose, is to admit that the Libertarian Party advocates Anarchism, and argue that Anarchism is the only Biblical form of social order, and that the Libertarian Party is the best way for Christians to promote Christian values and make America again a "City upon a Hill," a nation "under God."

Outline

1. The Libertarian Party advocates anarchism ("anarcho-capitalism").
   1. Not "violence, chaos and lawlessness," but the elimination of the institution known as "the State."
2. No significant electoral success will be achieved until the LP "outs" itself as an advocate of anarcho-capitalism and an opponent of the entire concept of "the State."
   1. No immediate electoral success will be achieved by doing this (obviously), but this is the only hope for long-term success.
   2. Most voters suspect the LP is anarchist, and don't trust the All-American façade of the LP.
   3. Only after voters believe the LP can be trusted can they be persuaded to believe the LP is right.
3. Christians are the most important voting bloc to be courted by the anarcho-LP.
   1. Christians and LP's both vote on principle; other blocs do not.
   2. Christians are 80% of the population, a majority of voters
   3. Christian principles are compatible with anarcho-LP principles.

Demographic considerations

80% or more of all Americans identify themselves as "Christians." If "Jews vote Democratic," elections can be won once it can be said "Christians vote Libertarian."

Among this group may be seen Issue-Oriented Christians and Feeling-Oriented Christians

• Issue-Oriented Christians are interested in theological doctrines and political issues. They read. They vote. They influence others who vote. They are critical of the status quo, or they are passionate defenders of the status quo if it is being attacked by "the forces of immorality."
• Feeling-Oriented Christians are interested in warm fuzzy feelings and inner peace. They don't read. They don't vote. Or if they do vote, they voted for Bill Clinton because he's "cute." Or they vote for candidates that promise to "help" people. They don't criticize the status quo because "Christians are not supposed to be 'judgmental.'"

Libertarians should try to convert Feeling-Oriented Christians into Issue-Oriented Christians, and Issue-Oriented Christians into Libertarians. This will work to the long-term success of the Libertarian Party, and can be accomplished by accepting the following points:

1. The Libertarian Party advocates anarchism ("anarcho-capitalism").

Anarchism is a word loaded with bad freight. Dictionaries often list several definitions which are completely inconsistent with each other, ranging from violent riots, chaos and lawlessness, to a utopian paradise where no authorities interfere with the harmony of individuals and their collectives.

All dictionaries seem to agree on at least one aspect of "anarchism": the abolition of "the State." Debaters can pick apart definitions of "the State," also known as "the government," but basically we know what it is: the group or institution with a monopoly of the power to tax. Whatever else "the State" may do (operate railroads and post offices, arbitrate disputes, punish criminals, defend against invasions) it is "the State" if it does nothing else but confiscate the wealth of others ("tax") without significant impedance from a rival group.

The Libertarian Party Platform advocates the abolition of "the State" as we know it, and as political scientists have defined it for centuries. Educated Americans recognize this.

I sent the following letter to over one hundred Professors of Political Science in major universities. A majority of respondents agreed that the Libertarian Party advocates anarchism. I'm confident I could argue down the minority.

Objections:

(Please email your objections:  e.g., "No, you're wrong. The Libertarian Party does not advocate anarchism. The LP believes that only 'the State,' by resorting to violence or threats of force, can perform function X or provide service Y.")

2. No significant electoral success will be achieved until the LP "outs" itself as an advocate of anarcho-capitalism and an opponent of the entire concept of "the State."

1. No immediate electoral success will be achieved by doing this (obviously), but this is the only hope for long-term success.

I support anarchism. Anything less than anarchism is a betrayal of the fundamental principle of the LP ("Non-aggression against non-aggressors") and a violation of the pledge LP members take.

America and the world needs a fundamental realignment of political morality.

Socialism is immoral.

Taxation is theft.

War is murder.

Conscription is kidnapping.

• Americans are snoozing while the government takes ten times as much in taxes as precipitated the American Revolution. "Governments" have seized trillions of dollars of private property, exceeding by orders of magnitude the theft committed by private criminals.
• America gives foreign aid to dictators that have murdered hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century. Americans blithely accept mass-murder and violence unimaginable two centuries ago. The planet's greatest source of violence is "the State," not the "criminals" from which "the State" promises to protect us.
• Individual rights which stirred the passions of America's Founding Fathers are being swept away, but most Americans will barely bat an eye. Most Americans are victims of an effective brainwashing campaign conducted in government-run schools which increases immorality and irresponsibility, which the State then proposes to address with more taxes, more government power, and further restrictions on liberties.

American voters will not be awakened from their slumbers by campaigns-as-usual. If we campaign as normal statist candidates, as more consistent Republicans ("They say small government/lower taxes, but I really mean it!") or as more consistent Democrats ("They say more civil liberties, but I really mean it!"), people will yawn. Nobody will THINK about the big issues Libertarians want them to think about.

The Libertarian Platform is in reality rightly asking Americans to become anarchists. But Libertarians cannot convince anyone to become an anarchist without campaigning on that platform. Most people have never even considered the idea that "the government" causes more problems than it purports to solve. Libertarians ought to "raise the bar," and hold America to the highest standard. If you push budding track stars to high-jump at 6 feet, you'll get more jumps at 5'10" than you would if you only pushed them to shoot for 5'10".

Of course, no Libertarian candidate should announce that in her first term of office she will completely eliminate "the government." That isn't going to happen. It's important to remind voters that it won't happen overnight, and that we have a step-by-step program to abolish economic disorder and government-funded chaos, beginning with the most obviously wrong-headed programs. But our ultimate goal is still anarchism.

I recognize the immediate danger of announcing that we support "anarchism." Confusion is the best that can result, and a barrage of bad publicity and mis-led voters can be expected.

In the short run.

But consider the long-term effects:

2. Most voters suspect the LP is anarchist, and don't trust the All-American façade of the LP.

In my (limited) experience, voters don't trust Libertarians. They feel that we have a hidden agenda. We don't come right out and say that we are anarchists, but as people become acquainted with our platform, they (rightly) suspect that we are.

• "Cut taxes, sure, but abolish all taxes? There's something wrong about that."
• "I'm all for 'smaller, less intrusive government,' but abolish all those programs?"
• "You're not some kind of anarchist, are you?"

Logically, libertarians are anarchists, and as word gets out that we really intend on abolishing "government as we know it," people will feel that we concealed our true agenda and that we cannot be trusted. Unless we put it all out on the table.

Trust is everything in politics.

The Libertarian Party is going nowhere, IMHO. No Libertarian candidate has been a genuine threat in any election (threat of winning outright anyway; Republicans are increasingly seeing Libertarians as a threat to swing more elections to Democrats). The two party system is increasingly entrenched. "National Security" fosters an unwillingness in the minds of moderate middle-of-the-roaders to try the new, untested ideas of a third-party. Because Libertarians are never a genuine threat, nobody really scrutinizes the Libertarian Party Platform. There has been no exposure and discussion of the LP core beliefs. If a Libertarian candidate becomes a threat, many voters might be persuaded not to vote Libertarian if they are warned that Libertarians have always advocated anarchism but never openly admitted it.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Socialist Party was a fringe third part that appeared to be going nowhere, advocating the repudiation of time-honored American capitalism. But by the end of the 20th century, most of their platform had been adopted. Their thinking is now mainstream. They were honest about their intentions.

3. Only after voters believe the LP can be trusted can they be persuaded to believe the LP is right.

By announcing "the end of government as we know it" Libertarians will gain integrity. Since people generally don't trust politicians; by becoming anti-politicians Libertarian candidates will be trusted more by voters. Moral, nonviolent anarchism will come as a shock to most voters, but when the shock wears off, the idea will blossom.

And the LP is right to advocate the COMPLETE elimination of taxes and monopoly: in short, the elimination of the entire concept of "the State."

3. Christians are the most important voting bloc to be courted by the anarcho-LP.

1. Christians and LP's both vote on principle; other blocs do not.
   • I personally know "Christians" who voted for Bill Clinton because "he's cute." Such voters did not vote as Christians.
   • Christians who vote as Christians vote on principles. They are among the strongest holders of principles of all voting blocs.
2. Christians are 80% of the population, a majority of active voters
   Nuff said
3. Christian principles are compatible with anarcho-LP principles.

This last point is the heart of this CD.

I contend that when it comes to thinking about "the State," most people think like Christians even if they don't call themselves Christians. That's because we are products of "western civilization" which is largely Christian civilization. In a nutshell:

• Christians believe that "the State" is a divinely-ordained institution. The phrase "the powers that be" is part of a Biblical phrase: "The powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13)
• Most non-Christians instinctively shudder at the prospect of abolishing the State because they have grown up in a culture that is steeped in Romans 13 thinking.

If we can convince Christians to be anarchists, we can convince anybody to be anarchists. If we can almost convince them to be anarchists, they will be relieved to be allowed to become ordinary min-archist libertarians.

How NOT to argue with Christians

Many libertarians are not Christians, and even have a strong antipathy toward religion and general and Christianity in particular. Objectivists (Ayn Randians) are good examples of this antipathy. When arguing with Christians, atheist libertarians tend to try to convince Christians to do more than vote libertarian, but to renounce religion altogether. I recommend trying to convince Christians to become more consistent Christians, to follow the Bible more consistently, and to see that being the most consistent Christian means being an anarchist.

The issues are simple.

• Logically, "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not kill" mean the end of "the State." The State is institutionalized theft and murder.
• We are not to take vengeance. Jesus said "resist not evil." Romans 12 says vengeance belongs to God. "The State" is the evasion of these commands, the institutionalization of vengeance.
• Yes, but (you will always hear this question from educated Christians), what about Romans 13?

This issue is not quite as simple, but eminently winnable.

• Romans 13 does not say God approves of the State, only that He is in control of the State.
• Nowhere in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation does God command human beings to form "the State."
• The Apostle Paul speaks of the State as "the powers." In every occurrence of this word in the New Testament, the reference is to demonic powers.

The Bible is plainly anti-statist. By forbidding theft it strikes at the heart of "the State." Whole books of the Bible (the books of Samuel, the Kings, and the prophets) are almost entirely a sustained argument against "the State" and chronicle of its failures. The Bible never records God's approval of "the State," and urges a way of life which undercuts the power of "the State."

This is a vast simplification of a world-view, not just a bumper-sticker. Reversing the brainwashing which government schools and media have accomplished will take a few discussions and a willingness to study. This CD contains a large amount of information that has proven its ability to persuade thinking Christians to become anarchists.

That may actually be tough for some atheistic Libertarians. They may not be eager to have a part to play in making Christians more consistently Christian. Some will say that it is impossible for Christians (especially of the "Reconstructionist" stripe) to adopt Anarcho-Libertarianism because these Christians are intolerant bigots who want to impose their religion on others by force. The Religious Right believes in Theocracy -- how can they ever be expected to vote Libertarian when that Party will not allow them to impose their religion on others by force?

This will be a tough nut for some Libertarians to swallow, but Libertarianism allows Christians to turn America into a Theocracy. The LP is the best vehicle for Christians to turn America into a Theocracy.

• Christians want schools to teach Creationist Theocracy. Libertarianism will snatch schools out of the hand of the Secular Humanist government and transfer it (by sheer force of numbers and wealth, taking advantage of a Free Market) to Christians, who can teach millions the Ten Commandments.
• Christians want to discriminate against homosexuals. Libertarianism rids the nation of regulatory bureaucrats and allows Christians to fire the church organist when he comes out of the closet.

I have my own label for a consistent anarchist Christian system: "Anarcho-Theocracy." Hard-core religious righters ("Christian Reconstructionists") are attracted to the "Theocracy" part of this label. Others on the hard-right like the term "Patriarchy." Here are gateways to these two forms of Christian anarchism:

The word "Theocracy" simply means "ruled by God." It has nothing to do with priests or the Taliban. America is by definition a Theocracy, a nation "under God." The genius of America is not the idea of a secular nation, but the idea of a Libertarian government "under God." This is an insight which has immediate attraction for the hard-core Religious Right.

Few people are aware of the influence these hard-righters have had.

• "The Moral Majority" -- Newsweek magazine identified the Christian Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation as the "think tank" of the Religious Right (Feb. 2, 1981, p. 60), although Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others who have been the most influenced by the "Reconstructionists" have also always been the quickest to deny any affiliation with them. More recently, that cone of silence has been raised, and the Religious Right is less reticent to admit the debt owed to Rushdoony. Marvin Olasky, who coined the phrase "Compassionate Conservatism," has openly admitted his gratitude to Rushdoony.
• The Election of Ronald Reagan -- At the National Affairs Briefing Conference, sponsored by the Religious Roundtable, and held in Dallas in the Summer of 1980, Reagan spoke to a crowd of thousands of leaders of the Religious Right. Carter was a no-show. This was a turning point in the campaign. Leaders there admitted that if it weren't for R.J. Rushdoony, patriarch of the "Reconstructionist" movement, none of them would be there; none of them would have the political clout they were then experiencing.

These people are hard-core, fanatic, issue-driven. They talk. They argue. They vote. They influence other voters.

There is another brand of people who identify themselves as "Christians." They are "pietists." Christianity for them is inward. It brings warm fuzzy feelings. It is non-judgmental. It is "can't we all just get along?" These people are feeling-oriented, not issue-oriented. They don't talk, they swoon. They don't argue (that might be judgmental). They don't vote. They certainly don't vote against the status quo. Too judgmental. They will never become libertarian activists unless they first become influenced by the "Reconstructionists."

Here are the fundamental arguments for anarchism on conservative Biblical grounds. These links branch out to nearly one-thousand web pages on this CD.

In a court of law the Prosecution must bring a convincing case against the accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Defense attorneys don't have to call a single witness if the Prosecution fails to meet its burden of producing a case which is prima facie -- "at first appearance" -- convincing. When a prima facie case has been made, a person is reasonably and ethically justified in accepting that position until counter evidence is set forth.

Probably most church-goers have never read the Bible from cover to cover as they would a Harry Potter book. We contend that a person reading through the Bible is warranted in believing that the State is evil. We will summarize the teachings of the Bible in such a way that a reasonable person would be forced to agree with us (that "the State" has no moral legitimacy) until contrary evidence is brought forth.

Anarchism: A Society without Vengeance

We assume our jurors have taken Christian Ethics 101, and have heard Christ teach the duty to love one's enemies and eschew vengeance and violence. Our first witness is John Calvin, in his comments on Romans 12:17-21.

We could rest our case here, but after the recess we will submit:

• Jesus’ Command to be Anarcho-Capitalists
• The State as Criminal
• Four Theonomic Prohibitions of Socialism

We will close by summing up the entire Bible, which never gives anyone the right to take vengeance:

• “Ninety-Five Theses on the State”

"Theocracy" - A Nation "Under God"

Abolishing the government scares many Christians, because they feel this would open the door to crime and lawlessness. But we do not advocate lawless anarchy, but rather "Liberty Under God." Many atheists sense a hidden "theocratic" agenda in this phrase, which is perfectly understandable. "Theocracy" and "Anarchy" are these loaded terms that are used to frighten people away from Libertarianism and Christianity. So we've combined them both in a uniquely-offensive phrase:  "Anarcho-Theocracy." This form of government empowers morality, whereas "the State" destroys morals.

• The meaning of the term "theocracy"
  • It means a nation "under God," that's all. It has nothing to do with priests, churches, or the Taliban.
• "Under God" -- Not just a slogan of  Cold War reactionism
• "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
• Christianity and Liberty: The Link
• America's Theocratic Character

"Liberty Under God" is a phrase that will make Christians think, and (quite possibly) become politically active.

The Libertarian Party is the only party that recognizes the evil of institutionalized vengeance. The Libertarian Party is the only party that will allow Christian Self-Government to flourish. The wheelers and dealers of the other major political parties -- the ones who make the big decisions in smoke-filled rooms -- are at war with decentralized Christian self-government. It will take years to "reform" these parties, to make them what the Libertarian Party is today.

When Christians understand the advantages of Libertarianism, election results will start changing.

The Bible | | 1. Presence | | 2. Globalism | | 3. Theonomy | | 4. Peace | | 5. Family | | 6. Garden | | 7. Community
Home  | | Theology  | | History  | | Culture | | No State | | No Church | | Godly Families -- Everywhere | | Overview

http://members.aol.com/Craig4Congress/LP/index.htm
files || toc