2 votes

ATTN Social Conservatives: Political v. Moral Libertarianism

'Libertarianism' is being thrown around to describe Ron Paul, again.

Unfortunately, the term conflates types of libertarianisms, the political and moral varieties especially.

In order to reach social conservatives, I think that it is important to make the distinction - and frequently.

A political libertarian, such as Ron Paul, could be more accurately called a classical liberal. A political libertarian holds that the federal government should play a very limited role - if no role - with respect to social and moral issues, like marriage.

The role of the the federal government is to protect life and liberty, simply. After all, what are social and moral decisions if they are not free? Our federal constitution is an expression of political liberalism, or classical liberalism.

A moral libertarian, however, is akin to a moral nihilist or moral relativist, the positions that there are no social or moral standards, or that there are many, many social and moral standards - so, everything and anything ought to be permitted and nobody should care about what anybody else does.

All libertines are moral libertarians but not all moral libertarians are libertines, a perspective associate with licentiousness.

Now, Ron Paul is anything but licentious, and he is far-and-away from holding that there are no social or moral standards, the position of moral libertarianism. That is, he recognizes that certain behaviors - certain ways of life - are indeed destructive of a real standards of human well-being, and so wrong: indebtedness, for example. But, he recognizes the inherent dangers in using the force of government to impose one's moral and social decisions on somebody else.

Moral ideas - ways of life - must be free, like economic ideas, to compete in a "market", where people may choose to be and act in certain ways modeled and exhorted by others.

If homosexual marriage is wrong, for instance, then heterosexuality must win the day, so to speak. Obviously, rampant divorce and adultery aren't winning any hearts and minds. But, it is no proof of the goodness of homosexual marriage or the position of moral libertarianism either, which - like moral conservatism - must try to "win the day".

Whatever the case, the state - for a political libertarian - should not interfere with this moral market.

After all, morality is only possible thru liberty, including the liberty to mistakenly choose objectively immoral ways of life.

A controlled society cannot - by definition - be a moral society no matter how decent and orderly that society may appear - to wit, so much of well-ordered, totalitarian China.

If you believe wholeheartedly that your beliefs, decisions and lifestyle are best - that there are objective moral claims on our lives - the onus is on you to lead it and lead others to and in it - but not with the help of the government, a government that protects the life and liberty of everyone, moral and immoral alike.

And, if you're a Christian, this should be Gospel to your ears: "Render unto Cesar..."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It is ONLY because GOD instituted human Governement that I

respond. If not to curb behavior then why did God impliment human government? For without which we would go back to the rule of CONSIENCE and every man would rule according to his own mindset. Therefore GOD knowing the heart of men as He does and we all can bear witnes to same for the mess we are in , HE implimented restrant for "the good" of "all" mankind. Men cannot be trusted with wahat power is given by beling totally free unless they have A GOD concience. You can only get this by being BORN AGAIN.

This is what the anti- christ will try to accomplish. Get you to change your heart by another means. It will be through the auspices of Legislation. Death and Hell will follow. There can be no substitute for CHRIST, in GOD's mind.

God and Government


I'm having trouble understanding your reply.

What sort of "government" did God institute, exactly?

Are you saying that we ***need*** government, moreover?

Isn't government as prone to abuses as we are because we - not God - are the governed and governing?

Are you saying that government is a necessary evil because of our fallen condition?

While leaders have a conscience, surely, governments do not. Saying that a government has a conscience is like saying that a circle has a corner.

And, please: don't "yell" and do proof-read your posts.




Yea , I was in a hurry, I have a wife too.

honey do list you know. Sorry.

Ok this is the human experience.

Adam/ promise of redemption.
Adam / marrage
Cain /cities
Other decendent/ families
all One /Language
Noah /ark and flood covenant
Noah /dispersion of families to selves
Tower of Bable from HAM /Nimrod/ scatering of peoples to kingdoms or Nations. Confusion gathers together needs leadership individually.
Then the call of ABRAM. The LAW/ Then progression to today, with Christ the promise fullfilled.
To place of beginning with the promise of the line King DAVID on his throne. Christ's second advent, after the anti-christ.

All these kingdoms need Leadership or government . God uses Nations to judge Nations untill the LAST DAY. The U.N. has nothing on GOD for GOD already uses Nations. the U.N. is humans trying to do GOD's job. But to their amazement, GOD uses the U.N. to fullfill HIS purposes. Israel is back in GOD's land, It doesn't belong to anyone but to who HE says it belongs to. Anyone can claim they are Israel. Anyone can be a Palistinian and claim. That does not mean it belongs to them either. God will have a HOLY inhabitance or none. When HE steps foot on the Mount to defeat the anti-christ.
Then a HOLY people will establish an Earthly kingdom forever. Then welcome to the 1000year reign. If you are welcome there.

Man looks through a glass dimly, but GOD see man clearly.
GOD does everything he can to restrain evil, for HE is HOLY.