Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I was asked about this in another thread, so I figured I'd just go ahead and share it here, seeing as it was off topic for the thread in question. While I may answer questions, this is not a "ask me" thread. I am busy with school and only getting busier. So, while I will most likely answer some questions, I will be trying to avoid extended debate if I can help it, and I may not answer every question. This thread is NOT for mockery, and it will be reported, keep this in mind.
Note that I understand the below will be somewhat simplified. This is not a comprehensive analysis of political philosophy, simply a brief explanation of what influenced me, as a Christian conservative, to become libertarian and ultimately anarcho-capitalist. In some ways this does reflect my understanding of political philosophy throughout my intellectual development, but even then, I do simplify at times.
Also note that I do NOT want to discuss theonomy/reconstruction in this thread, as there are plenty of other threads on that subject and we've done it enough times. Suffice to say that I actually never even considered the theonomist viewpoint until after I became an an-cap, I respect the theonomist viewpoint more than I used to even though I still don't agree with it, and even the theonomist should agree with many of my criticisms of modern conservatism, at least on foreign policy and civil liberty issues if not social ones.
Now, with that said:
As a (political) conservative, I always and immediately saw certain paradoxes in conservatism. I never understood why conservatives, supposedly believers in small government, would want to regulate things like drug use and the like. I DID understand the opposition to gay marriage, since I saw [still do to some degree, though not in the same political sense that I did back in 2010] it as a fundamental matter of morality, and of course I never questioned that abortion should be unlawful since it was the taking of human life (I am still 100% pro-life, for the record) but I never understood why people should be prohibited from harming themselves through drug use and so forth. Nor did I understand why conservatives generally favored laws like the Patriot Act, which seemed to clearly go against their constitutional inclinations. Or why despite the clear reasons for the 2nd amendment most opposed or were at least silent about the right to own military class weaponry. I also pretty much always viewed taxation as theft, and while I thought surely SOME level of taxation was a necessary evil, conservatives were never as zealously in favor of reducing it as I would have liked. So, from the very beginning I wondered about the consistency of conservatism and libertarianism had appeal for me, even though I had no understanding of libertarian foreign policy (like most here I was convinced "the troops" were "fighting for our freedoms") and I thought pure libertarianism was too extreme in some regards.
It was at this time that I encountered Ron Paul, and while I didn't agree with his foreign policy at the time (again, I believed US military was fighting to spread freedom around the world) I liked him better than any of the other Republicans, both because of his economic stances and his uncompromising 2nd amendment stance (I don't think I actually thought about the civil liberties issues as much back then, though I distinctly remember opposition to the Patriot Act.) Ultimately, I cared more about economic policy than civil liberties.
To make a long story short, on another forum I encountered an anarcho-capitalist for the first time (Lexington 96 probably knows who this was), I asked him his opinion of Ron Paul, and after stating a positive opinion of him, he pointed me to LewRockwell.com.
After that, I mostly just gradually felt pulled away from conservatism and was attracted to the ideology of libertarianism. I wasn't "converted" overnight, I carefully considered each position before changing them. At some point the NAP "clicked" for me, and the idea of having laws prohibiting ANY peaceful behavior just seemed inconsistent with the small government conservatism that I had held to in the first place. At that point, after around a year of on and off study, I became a minarchist (I believe it was the expenses at first, and the realization of the murder of innocents later, that converted me to Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy, and at this point probably a foreign policy that is even more radically non-interventionist than Paul's). At that point it was mostly just me realizing my own inconsistencies in debates that led me all the way to the an-cap position. For a long time I clung to the belief that God had ordained (in a positive sense) some form of State, it was an understanding of Calvinist two-will theology that ultimately enabled me to break free of this. But prior to that point I was realizing inconsistencies with my minarchist arguments, and even stated on multiple occasions that I recognized that my own arguments logically lead to anarchy. I couldn't live with logical contradictions. Once I realized that the same market that provides so many other useful functions could also provide defense, police, and court services, combined with the realization of just how much evil and violence is implicit in the current system, I went all the way.
Contrary to what many have accused me of, I am NOT part of any kind of a cult, nor do I read to much into secular libertarian philosophy. While Rothbard was helpful in terms of helping me to imagine a society without a State, I do not rely on him for moral justification (indeed, his positions on abortion and the family are unfortunate.) I simply do not believe the Bible calls us as Christians to try to use the government to control other people, nor do I think that being part of "government" gives one the right to steal. I am not that strongly opinionated on how exactly government services should be provided so long as they are voluntarily funded and do not use violence against peaceful people, however immoral their behavior may be. Preach the gospel to dissuade people from peaceful immoralities, don't put a gun to their heads. Its what Jesus would want, after all. Follow the Golden Rule, be a peacemaker, live at peace with all men as much as it depends on you, etc.
Note that I understand the below will be somewhat simplified. This is not a comprehensive analysis of political philosophy, simply a brief explanation of what influenced me, as a Christian conservative, to become libertarian and ultimately anarcho-capitalist. In some ways this does reflect my understanding of political philosophy throughout my intellectual development, but even then, I do simplify at times.
Also note that I do NOT want to discuss theonomy/reconstruction in this thread, as there are plenty of other threads on that subject and we've done it enough times. Suffice to say that I actually never even considered the theonomist viewpoint until after I became an an-cap, I respect the theonomist viewpoint more than I used to even though I still don't agree with it, and even the theonomist should agree with many of my criticisms of modern conservatism, at least on foreign policy and civil liberty issues if not social ones.
Now, with that said:
As a (political) conservative, I always and immediately saw certain paradoxes in conservatism. I never understood why conservatives, supposedly believers in small government, would want to regulate things like drug use and the like. I DID understand the opposition to gay marriage, since I saw [still do to some degree, though not in the same political sense that I did back in 2010] it as a fundamental matter of morality, and of course I never questioned that abortion should be unlawful since it was the taking of human life (I am still 100% pro-life, for the record) but I never understood why people should be prohibited from harming themselves through drug use and so forth. Nor did I understand why conservatives generally favored laws like the Patriot Act, which seemed to clearly go against their constitutional inclinations. Or why despite the clear reasons for the 2nd amendment most opposed or were at least silent about the right to own military class weaponry. I also pretty much always viewed taxation as theft, and while I thought surely SOME level of taxation was a necessary evil, conservatives were never as zealously in favor of reducing it as I would have liked. So, from the very beginning I wondered about the consistency of conservatism and libertarianism had appeal for me, even though I had no understanding of libertarian foreign policy (like most here I was convinced "the troops" were "fighting for our freedoms") and I thought pure libertarianism was too extreme in some regards.
It was at this time that I encountered Ron Paul, and while I didn't agree with his foreign policy at the time (again, I believed US military was fighting to spread freedom around the world) I liked him better than any of the other Republicans, both because of his economic stances and his uncompromising 2nd amendment stance (I don't think I actually thought about the civil liberties issues as much back then, though I distinctly remember opposition to the Patriot Act.) Ultimately, I cared more about economic policy than civil liberties.
To make a long story short, on another forum I encountered an anarcho-capitalist for the first time (Lexington 96 probably knows who this was), I asked him his opinion of Ron Paul, and after stating a positive opinion of him, he pointed me to LewRockwell.com.
After that, I mostly just gradually felt pulled away from conservatism and was attracted to the ideology of libertarianism. I wasn't "converted" overnight, I carefully considered each position before changing them. At some point the NAP "clicked" for me, and the idea of having laws prohibiting ANY peaceful behavior just seemed inconsistent with the small government conservatism that I had held to in the first place. At that point, after around a year of on and off study, I became a minarchist (I believe it was the expenses at first, and the realization of the murder of innocents later, that converted me to Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy, and at this point probably a foreign policy that is even more radically non-interventionist than Paul's). At that point it was mostly just me realizing my own inconsistencies in debates that led me all the way to the an-cap position. For a long time I clung to the belief that God had ordained (in a positive sense) some form of State, it was an understanding of Calvinist two-will theology that ultimately enabled me to break free of this. But prior to that point I was realizing inconsistencies with my minarchist arguments, and even stated on multiple occasions that I recognized that my own arguments logically lead to anarchy. I couldn't live with logical contradictions. Once I realized that the same market that provides so many other useful functions could also provide defense, police, and court services, combined with the realization of just how much evil and violence is implicit in the current system, I went all the way.
Contrary to what many have accused me of, I am NOT part of any kind of a cult, nor do I read to much into secular libertarian philosophy. While Rothbard was helpful in terms of helping me to imagine a society without a State, I do not rely on him for moral justification (indeed, his positions on abortion and the family are unfortunate.) I simply do not believe the Bible calls us as Christians to try to use the government to control other people, nor do I think that being part of "government" gives one the right to steal. I am not that strongly opinionated on how exactly government services should be provided so long as they are voluntarily funded and do not use violence against peaceful people, however immoral their behavior may be. Preach the gospel to dissuade people from peaceful immoralities, don't put a gun to their heads. Its what Jesus would want, after all. Follow the Golden Rule, be a peacemaker, live at peace with all men as much as it depends on you, etc.
