Posted on 01/01/2002 5:06:05 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
RAZORMOUTH: Libertarian Theocracy, Part 1
Contrary to broad generalizations, not all theocrats are created equal. For example, there is the vast, left-wing political theocracy. Those whose religious views (usually secular humanism) spur radical environmentalism, feminism, and racism operate politically in terms of their religion. They want the state to enforce their theocratic views in the form of laws seizing property (federal land grabs) and discriminating against sexes and races (quotas). We libertarian theocrats vigorously oppose this theft, sexism and racism.
Then there are their counterparts on the Right right-wing, and often Christian, political theocrats. As I pointed out in an earlier Razormouth column, Attorney General John Ashcroft, a fervent Pentecostal, is also a theocrat, affirming the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ (as he should!). In the words of Newsweek, he is a hero to law-and-order conservatives . . . son and grandson of fundamentalist Christian preachers. However, in the present war climate, he has lobbied for vastly expanded state powers (domestic, not only foreign) and elicited the ire of liberty-loving Christians.
Both Ashcroft and we advocate theocracy, godly rule; but we surely dont agree on the way to achieve it. We libertarian theocrats want less state interference and protection and more godliness and safety. We dont think that the state, in the vast majority of cases, does as good a job at protecting citizens as the family and church and other private institutions.
Other examples of political theocracy include many Christians (understandable) support for a Human Life Amendment to crush the scourge of abortion. We libertarian theocrats oppose abortion as vehemently as the Christian political theocrats, and we define it as murder that must be criminalized. But we dont want to put additional power in the hands of an already bloated federal government, as such a Constitutional amendment would. We want less murder, and a smaller state.
Then theres economic protectionism, a linchpin of a lot of political theocrats economic views. They advocate national socialism in the name of keeping American jobs at home. They advocate tariffs and duties that deprive American citizens of the liberty to buy from whom they will and American companies from hiring whom they will. They believe that protectionism is a holy cause to keep America great. We libertarian theocrats too want to keep America great; but protectionism is a mighty bad way to do it. We believe that a holy economic cause is getting the Feds out of the economy and allowing individuals and families and businesses to contract freely and peacefully with whom they will. You dont advance Christian theocracy by curbing political liberty, as national socialism surely does.
Likes Gandalfs caveat about the precious ring in J. R. R. Tolkiens trilogy, power corrupts, even perhaps especially when its wielded with virtuous intentions.
Christian political theocrats have been duped by the left-wing paradigm. In the last century, political liberalism was convinced that social change is impossible apart from state coercion. This is why whenever theres a school shooting, a rise in homelessness, or a health-care predicament, the first things liberals say is, What can we get Washington to do about this? The idea that there could be non-political answers to these problems doesnt enter the minds of most on the Left.
Now when many Christians, whose only prominent exposure to social action is from the Left, encounter socially malignant sins like atheism, homosexuality, racism and pornography, their first impulse, like the liberals, is to respond, What can we get Washington to do about this? The idea that there could be non-political answers to these evils doesnt enter the minds of many on the Christian Right. They join secularist liberals in seeing politics as the principal means of social change.
Its easy to see theocracy in political terms, and why it could be attractive, because theocracy certainly is a rule and governance, and we in the modern world are accustomed to understanding rule and governance as almost exclusively political functions. But when your eyes are opened to the power of God to change individuals, and the godly authority of the family and church (and other private institutions and associations) to govern their external actions, youll be less inclined to trust politics for such theocratic purposes.
Youll want greater theocracy and, therefore, less state interference. Youll repudiate political theocracy on the Left and the Right.
Liberty for Unbelievers
Of course, not all people in the world are or ever will be Christians. Does libertarian theocracy deprive them of political liberty? All to the contrary, it guarantees that liberty. Secular views of political rights suspend them on flimsy theories (legal positivism, the greatest good for the greatest number, whatever works, etc.). But libertarian theocrats agree with Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights granted by God. We believe that the state may not deprive them. In other words, atheists are politically safer in a Christian society than an atheistic society (like Cuba or North Korea!). We believe their beliefs and practices (like Christians), if peaceful and law-abiding, should be politically protected. Political persecution for religion (or irreligion) is an anathema to libertarian theocracy.
Libertarian Theocracy and American Political Institutions
The role of the state in a Christian society is essentially to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the trio of rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. The United States Constitution itself, as John Eidsmoe demonstrates, was shaped by a Christian ethos. In fact, libertarian theocrats are firm proponents of the free institutions of American democracy: divided, representative government; wide suffrage; checks and balances; and Constitutional guarantees like due process and a bill of rights. In this environment, Christians can preach the gospel, propagate Gods law in the church and wider society, and live peaceably with unbelievers, jealously guarding political (and not just religious) liberty for all not just Christians. We must advance Christs kingdom, and that necessitates political liberty. Every area of life must be Christianized, including the state and this means a minuscule state!
Precisely because we believe so fervently in theocracy, we must largely dismantle and greatly decentralize politics.
Led to believe that they're still free to decide
Because the TV gave permission -- some a program on rights
Fed only the candy the part that they wanna hear
Slowly raped though they can only feel the tickle in their ears
A nation of puppets who worship a beast
Who drinks the blood of their souls as they lay at its feet
If seeing is believing then you can have your TV screen
I will worship a God who allows me to think
by THE CRUCIFIED
Mindbender
The Pillars of Humanity, 1991
Like?s Gandalf?s caveat about the ?precious? ring in J. R. R. Tolkien?s trilogy, power corrupts, even ? perhaps especially ? when it?s wielded with virtuous intentionsOh, I'll say.
redrock--Constitutional Terrorist
p.s....I see it only took 10 posts for some idiot to prance around yelling "1%....1%".......
redrock--Constitutional Terrorist
p.s....I see it only took 10 posts for some idiot to prance around yelling "1%....1%".......
Oh, Sandlin and Miller, etc., don't necessarily vote Libertarian Party. Miller, for example, was one of the early movers in the California state Republican Liberty Caucus.
Understand that the Chalcedon Foundation has been considered "the ThinkTank of the Christian Right", much as Brookings and Urban Institute are the ThinkTanks of the Democrats, Heritage is the ThinkTank of the GOP and Cato is the ThinkTank of the Libertarians.
Understand further that Sandlin (author of the above piece) is Chalcedon's Executive Vice President, and Chalcedon has been moving ever more strongly in a libertarian direction.
Now realize that up until this point, the Statist-Authoritarian crowd has essentially enjoyed a "captive audience" on the Christian Right. Social Authoritarians such as Falwell, Robertson, Bauer and Ashcroft have enjoyed broad sway over legions of Christian Right voters, and have largely dominated the direction of Christian Right political activism... supported throughout the 80's, to a greater or lesser extent, by the intellectual firepower of the Chalcedon Foundation.
Should Chalcedon Foundation break with the Social Authoritarians, however, this will represent a major split within Christian Right political "orthodoxy". The intellectual core of Christian Right political activism will have cast its lot with Liberty, and against Statism... and I expect you will begin to see pitched battles between the two groups on the pages of World Magazine and Christianity Today -- both of which are already friendly to Chalcedon's background, as Chalcedon is predominantly Calvinist, and both CT ad World have a strong Calvinist editorial contingent (particularly World).
My friend Dana Rorbacher received 6% in one of the most liberal districts in California. Carla Howell received 12% in arguably the most liberal state in the nation and ran against Ted Kennedy.
Libertarians are making great strides and the poll results of Harry Browne are not a reflection of the true growth and influence of the LP.
Not that it matters now.
Not strictly true. The Federal Government may distribute a Tax Bill among the several States "according to the actual enumeration or census", i.e., in proportion to population. It would then be the prerogative of the States to determine how to raise the requisite funds, whether by Property Tax or excises, etc. (Ideally, you also repeal the 17th Amendment, so that the States are sending Senators whose jobs depend on sending the smallest Tax Bill possible home to their sovereign legislatures!! But even so, if a "State-Apportionment" Tax were adopted, at least you would have State Governors and Legislatures strongly opposed to Federal spending, and even without the ability to select Senators, that's a healthy adversarial relationship to encourage).
But I don't think that Sandlin is strictly against tariffs so much as he is against protectionism. The difference is simply a Laffer-curve question of whether or not your Tariffs are having a substantial "protective" impact, i.e., are scaring Imports away (and thus losing tariff revenue from the Imports which are driven away!!). If they are, that is "Protectionism", and Sandlin is against it. On the other hand, if your Tariffs are low enough that they are not having a substantial "Protective" impact, that's a "Revenue Tariff"... a low Tariff designed to garner revenue (by not driving Imports away), rather than a high Tariff designed to protect industry (by driving Imports away).
But yeah, at present, bit of a moot point. :-(
Not strictly true. The Federal Government may distribute a Tax Bill among the several States "according to the actual enumeration or census", i.e., in proportion to population. It would then be the prerogative of the States to determine how to raise the requisite funds, whether by Property Tax or excises, etc. (Ideally, you also repeal the 17th Amendment, so that the States are sending Senators whose jobs depend on sending the smallest Tax Bill possible home to their sovereign legislatures!! But even so, if a "State-Apportionment" Tax were adopted, at least you would have State Governors and Legislatures strongly opposed to Federal spending, and even without the ability to select Senators, that's a healthy adversarial relationship to encourage).
But I don't think that Sandlin is strictly against tariffs so much as he is against protectionism. The difference is simply a Laffer-curve question of whether or not your Tariffs are having a substantial "protective" impact, i.e., are scaring Imports away (and thus losing tariff revenue from the Imports which are driven away!!). If they are, that is "Protectionism", and Sandlin is against it. On the other hand, if your Tariffs are low enough that they are not having a substantial "Protective" impact, that's a "Revenue Tariff"... a low Tariff designed to garner revenue (by not driving Imports away), rather than a high Tariff designed to protect industry (by driving Imports away).
But yeah, at present, bit of a moot point. :-(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.