Ron Paul is More Libertarian than Gary Johnson

Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American author, physician, and retired politician who served as the U.S. Representative for Texas's 22nd congressional district from 1976 to 1977 and again from 1979 to 1985, and for Texas's 14th congressional district from 1997 to 2013. On three occasions, he sought the presidency of the United States: as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988 and as a candidate in the Republican primaries of 2008 and 2012. Paul is a critic of the federal government's fiscal policies, especially the existence of the Federal Reserve and the tax policy, as well as the military–industrial complex, and the War on Drugs. He has also been a vocal critic of mass surveillance policies such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance programs. He was the first chairman of the conservative PAC Citizens for a Sound Economy[1] and has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.[2][3]

Gary Earl Johnson (born January 1, 1953) is an American businessman, author and politician who served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003 as a member of the Republican Party. He was the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 and 2016 elections.[5]

The Libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress[sic] against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else

Libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American statesman Thomas Jefferson. Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy (the ability to pursue one’s own conception of happiness, or the “good life”). The purpose of government, according to liberals, is to protect these and other individual rights, and in general liberals have contended that government power should be limited to that which is necessary to accomplish this task. Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.

Individualism

Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility. The progressive extension of dignity to more people — to women, to people of different religions and different races — is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world.

Individual Rights

Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away.

San Pedro, California - On January 12, a great blow was struck against freedom, if you subscribe to the philosophy of Ron Paul. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission voted 4-0 to uphold its earlier finding that a Cincinnati landlord, Jamie Hein, had discriminated against a ten-year-old biracial girl by posting a "White Only" sign in June 2011, aimed at keeping her out of a swimming pool. According to Paul's worldview, this was a grave and terrible blow to the white landlord's liberty.

The girl's white father, however, sees things a bit differently.

"My initial reaction to seeing the sign was of shock, disgust and outrage," the girl's father, Michael Gunn, said in brief comments the day the final decision was announced. The family quickly moved away, in order to protect their daughter from exposure to such humiliating bigotry - but they also filed the lawsuit.

According to Ron Paul's view of "liberty", they were right to move, but wrong to sue. Both Ron Paul and his son, Rand, oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because it outlaws private acts of discrimination. This is an "infringement of liberty", they argue. And they're right: just like laws against murder, it infringes the liberty of bullies. And that's precisely what justice is: the triumph of right over might.

The same logic also applies to the Civil War. It resulted in the abolition of slavery - infringing the liberty of hundreds of thousands of slaveholders. And Ron Paul thinks that was wrong, too.

The idea of private property automatically violates the non-aggression principle. If libertarians start advocating for a commons, where the land belonged to everyone and no one, I might take them a little more seriously. In fact, the modern concept of private property was created when nobles started fencing off the commons and used the state or another form of violence to enforce their claims to the property. Should libertarians abolish the state as well as people’s current rights to ownership in favor of everyone beginning at an equal starting position in life, they violate the non-aggression principle. Should they abolish just the state, the poor will remain poor, and the rich will have no barriers to engaging in any kind of social or economic scheme. Since libertarians proselytize the property owner’s absolute control over his private property, it creates a dilemma where a form of feudalism takes shape and a new rentier class emerges.

A caller on the Sam Seder show elucidated this libertarian dilemma with childlike simplicity. He explained that the queen of England, under libertarian protections, could take her property, Great Britain and the other colonies, and do what she likes. She could, gasp, create a government to manage the property and, double gasp, raise money from taxes. Libertarians try to connect two disparate ideas: libertarian values and a libertarian state. But libertarian values can never ever lead to a libertarian state. It is highly improbable if not impossible for that ever to happen, especially since for the longest time Libertarianism by definition stood for a type of anarchy. Once a state is built on libertarian values, it ceases to be libertarian.

Paul grew up on his family’s dairy farm just outside Pittsburgh. He earned a bachelor’s degree in biology from Gettysburg College in 1957 and a medical degree from Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina, in 1961. He later served as a flight surgeon for the U.S. Air Force (1963–65) and the Air National Guard (1965–68). In 1968 Paul moved to Brazoria county, Texas, where he established a successful practice in obstetrics and gynecology.

RON PAUL, Republican of Texas, has retired from the House, after winning more than two million presidential primary votes in 2012. He took the party’s libertarian wing from ignorable fringe to significant faction. His son, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, is angling to lead that faction, very possibly as a presidential candidate himself.

The libertarian wing’s dissatisfaction with Mitt Romney led the Libertarian Party to earn 1.2 million votes in the presidential election for its candidate, the former New Mexico governor (and former Republican) Gary Johnson. That was its largest vote total ever. In at least seven national House and Senate races a Libertarian beat the spread between a winning Democrat and a losing Republican. From the Republican point of view, losing the libertarians can mean losing elections.

“There’s a whole swath of people not getting adequate attention from Republicans or Democrats,” Senator Paul told me recently. These are independent voters who want to seriously cut government spending the way the Tea Party faction does but who also want a “foreign policy more of defense and less offene,” as Senator Paul put it, and a “more socially tolerant attitude.”

The Rule of Law

Libertarianism is not Libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that “people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything.” Rather, Libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.

DEFENSE

The Libertarian nominee says the U.S. armed forces have too large a global footprint and that, as president, he would remove about half of the U.S. military bases around the world. Moreover, his campaign website says that U.S. "meddling in the affairs of other nations has made us less safe." Recent presidents from both parties have misused U.S. military power to "pursue undemocratic regime changes, embark on impossible nation-building exercises, and to establish the United States as the policeman of the world," it says.

Johnson says that as president he would only send military forces into battle with a formal authorization from Congress. He supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, but said the Bush administration should have withdrawn troops in 2002, after "we defeated al-Qaeda." He opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 as well as the military intervention in Libya in 2011.

IRAN

The former governor says he would abide by the multinational agreement to restrict Iran's nuclear program but has serious concerns about Tehran's funding of militant groups. "If the agreement delays the development of nuclear weapons and grants us greater ability to know what the Iranians are doing, the net benefits may outweigh the costs and flaws," his campaign said in September 2016.

ISLAMIC STATE

Congress should pass a bill specifically authorizing the U.S. military offensive against the self-proclaimed Islamic State, says Johnson. (As of October 2016, President Obama has requested but not received this authorization.) Meanwhile, the United States should be working with the Russian government, which backs the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, to bring the conflict to a close, he says. "The only way to shift that dynamic and bring an end to the civil war and the humanitarian consequences is to engage Russia in a credible peace process," Johnson's campaign said in September 2016. "It is not a matter of whether we want to work with Russia; it is that there is no alternative that will work," it said.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Many of the federal government's electronic surveillance activities violate the civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, says Johnson. If elected president, he said he wants "to get the government out of your life. Out of your cell phone. Out of your bedroom," according to his campaign website.

Johnson has also been critical of U.S. targeted killings, telling reporters in July 2016 he might as president end the practice of using drones to kill suspected terrorists. "If we're attacked, we're going to attack back, but these drone strikes do have the unintended consequences of killing innocent people," he told CNN.

NORTH KOREA

North Korea's development of nuclear weapons is "the biggest threat in the world right now," said Johnson in August 2016. The United States should be working with China toward ridding the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons, after which U.S. troops may be able to withdraw from South Korea, he says.

RUSSIA

Johnson says he would likely reevaluate U.S. security commitments to allies under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. "Do we really want to go to war with Russia over the Baltic states?" he said in August 2016. "Russia doesn't have to be our ally, but they don't necessarily need to be a military threat to the U.S. either," he said.

I had been elected governor when everyone said I didn't have a chance. A businessman who had never sought or held elected office, running as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. My prospects for success were dismissed by pretty much everyone.

But I worked hard, and told New Mexicans what I would do if elected: Reduce the size of the government, cut taxes and apply businesslike common sense to the job of governing. My state elected me, I did what I said I would do, and they re-elected me by an even bigger margin. After that second term, I walked away to resume what was -- and is -- a pretty good life.

I have had the good fortune to be able to climb the highest mountain on each of the seven continents. I have enjoyed the freedom I had gained from building a successful business from scratch, making some money and creating the lifestyle I wanted.

As for being governor, I did what I said I would do. I told people the truth, and I tried to run the state the same way I ran my business, and my life: Don't promise what you can't deliver. Deliver what you can on time and under budget. And most of all, don't waste anyone's time or money. I vetoed bills we didn't need nor couldn't afford -- 750 of them. To this day, some call me "Governor Veto."

And the result?

I cut the growth of government in half, and reduced the number of state employees by more than 1,000, without any mass firings or layoffs. We cut taxes. We shifted Medicaid to a managed care system and cut costs. I scrutinized regulations to be sure they were truly needed and not unnecessarily burdensome for individuals and businesses.

I enjoyed being governor. I didn't enjoy the politics, but it was satisfying to make a difference in people's lives, force debates on issues that needed to be discussed, and put the principles of smaller government and greater freedom into practice.

After my service as governor was finished, I largely stayed away from politics. I went home, pursued my passions for skiing and cycling, climbed Mount Everest, built my dream house and enjoyed my freedom.

But there was a big problem. I found I could not sit on the couch and watch as the politicians in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike, ran up trillions in debt, sent our young men and women into harm's way to fight ill-advised wars, and turned our government from a protector of freedom into a threat that is intruding into virtually every aspect of our personal and financial lives.

I couldn't stand by and do nothing. I had my freedom, and I had my comfortable life, but I couldn't accept the fact that the politicians were making it increasingly difficult for my kids and millions of others to achieve their dreams as I had achieved mine.

So, in 2012, I ran for president. But it became clear rather quickly that the system wasn't ready for my kind of classical liberalism. I tried to run as a Republican, but didn't fit into the mold demanded by the Republican primary gauntlet. I couldn't evangelize about family values that may be wonderful personal values, but that are frankly none of the government's business. I couldn't talk about increasing defense spending at a time when we are broke. And I had to tell the truth about entitlements that must be reformed if we are ever to balance the federal budget.

So I went home to the Libertarian Party. Libertarians, broadly speaking, are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Running as the candidate who could unapologetically advocate those principles was, well, liberating. I didn't win, but I garnered more votes than any Libertarian candidate in history.

Along the way, I learned a lot about the American people. Americans are fed up with politicians who lie, who don't really want to change anything, and for whom being elected and re-elected are ends in themselves.

Millennials -- who will soon be a full one-third of American adults -- may be especially ready to become engaged in politics with a candidate who wants to give them a government that will leave them alone and get its finances in order so that they don't inherit an economic collapse.

But all Americans who are rightfully and deeply concerned that a feckless foreign policy is allowing the likes of ISIS to not only threaten our safety, but humiliate us, may be ready for a candidate who will pursue reality-based foreign and military policies that actually fulfill government's most basic responsibility to keep us -- and our freedoms -- safe.

So ... for those who are asking "Why am I running for president in 2016?" the answer is simple. I believe America might be ready for something -- and somebody -- different.

After spelling out the good stuff from the leftist perspective — a 15 percent Defense Department spending cut ending all funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — the hard charge backward commences:

• No more aid to education. Goodbye, Department of Education.
  
• No more government-subsidized housing. Goodbye, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  
• No more energy programs. Goodbye, Department of Energy.
  
• No more programs to promote commerce and technology. Goodbye, Department of Commerce.
  
• *No more national parks. Goodbye, Department of the Interior.
  
• His opposition to the very existence of the Federal Reserve — he wrote a book titled “End the Fed” — is straight out of Rand, as is his promotion of the gold standard.
  

Paul would not reform the abysmally flawed and underfunded Securities and Exchange Commission, he would eliminate it. The only agency of the federal government that stands between the public and greedy bankers and crooked corporations would be gone. He is philosophically opposed to it, as he is to Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, the reform measures enacted after Enron and the 2008 financial crisis, respectively. His Reformed America would no longer discomfit Wall Street with the latter’s restrictions on banks or annoy corporate executives with Sarb-Ox’s ethics and fair-disclosure rules.

And this is but the beginning of the shower of blessings that would rain down upon the very richest Americans. He would end the income tax, thereby making the United States the ultimate onshore tax haven. The message to both the Street and corporate America would be a kind of hyper-Reaganesque “Go to town, guys.” With income, estate and gift taxes eliminated and the top corporate tax rate lowered to 15 percent (and not a word about cutting corporate tax loopholes), a kind of perma-plutonomy would come to exist in the land — to the extent that there isn’t one already.

Individualism

Libertarians embrace individualism insofar as they attach supreme value to the rights and freedoms of individuals. Although various theories regarding the origin and justification of individual rights have been proposed—e.g., that they are given to human beings by God, that they are implied by the very idea of a moral law, and that respecting them produces better consequences—all libertarians agree that individual rights are imprescriptible—i.e., that they are not granted (and thus cannot be legitimately taken away) by governments or by any other human agency. Another aspect of the individualism of libertarians is their belief that the individual, rather than the group or the state, is the basic unit in terms of which a legal order should be understood.

In 1996, the Governors, Congress, and the administration entered into a historic welfare reform agreement. In exchange for assuming the risk involved with accepting the primary responsibility for transforming the welfare system from one of dependency to self-sufficiency, Governors agreed to guaranteed funding for the life of the TANF block grant along with significant flexibility to administer federal programs. The current NGA policy on welfare reform makes three key points:

1. Maintain flexibility. The TANF block grant was created so that states could develop innovative approaches to addressing welfare reform, and states have been successful in tailoring their programs to meet the individual needs of their citizens. This flexibility must be maintained so that states can continue the progress of welfare reform.
   
2. Maintain investment. States are provided with $16.5 billion each year in federal TANF funds, which together with the required state maintenance-of-effort funds, finance welfare reform. Some will argue that the funding should be cut because of the dramatic drop in caseloads. But TANF is no longer just about cash assistance - states are now serving a much broader population than under the old welfare system, and states are now providing services to families that help them succeed and advance in the workplace, not just cutting a check for cash each month.
   
3. Move toward greater program alignment. The Food Stamp Program is one example of a program that is in great need of reform, and its connection to welfare reform should be discussed in the context of reauthorization. Other related programs that should be considered include child support, child welfare, housing, the Workforce Investment Act and Medicaid.
   

Power
A fundamental characteristic of libertarian thinking is a deep skepticism of government power. Libertarianism and liberalism both arose in the West, where the division of power between spiritual and temporal rulers had been greater than in most other parts of the world. In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), I Samuel 8: 17–18, the Jews asked for a king, and God warned them that such a king would “take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” This admonition reminded Europeans for centuries of the predatory nature of states. The passage was cited by many liberals, including Thomas Paine and Lord Acton, who famously wrote that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Libertarian skepticism was reinforced by events of the 20th century, when unrestrained government power, among other factors, led to world war, genocide, and massive human rights violations.

Peace and International Relations

In international affairs, libertarians emphasize the value of peace. That may seem unexceptional, since most (though not all) modern thinkers have claimed allegiance to peace as a value. Historically, however, many rulers have seen little benefit to peace and have embarked upon sometimes long and destructive wars. Libertarians contend that war is inherently calamitous, bringing widespread death and destruction, disrupting family and economic life, and placing more power in the hands of ruling classes. Defensive or retaliatory violence may be justified, but, according to libertarians, violence is not valuable in itself, nor does it produce any additional benefits beyond the defense of life and liberty.

Paul would admit that, in cases of self-defense, military force is necessary. The world does not have many such cases; America is not as threatened as some would like to think. “I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10 mile radius of my office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe.”

We installed Shah in Iran; we should mind our own business

Q: [to Ron Paul]: Your policy towards Iran is: No sanctions?

PAUL: No, that makes it much worse. This whole idea of sanctions, all these pretend free traders, they're the ones who put on these trade sanctions.

SANTORUM: Well, as the author of the Iran Freedom Support Act, which he is criticizing, it actually imposed sanctions on Iran because of their nuclear program--Iran is not Iceland, Ron. Iran is a country that has been at war with us since 1979. Iran is a country that has killed more American men and women in uniform than the Iraqis and the Afghanis have. The Iranians are the existential threat to the state of Israel, via funding of Hamas and Hezbollah and the support of Syria.

PAUL: The senator is wrong on his history. We've been at war in Iran for a lot longer than 1979. We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the shah, and the blowback came in 1979. It's been going on and on because we just plain don't mind our own business. That's our problem.

Q: Would you support a resumption of waterboarding under any circumstances?

SANTORUM: Under certain circumstances or any circumstances?

Q: Under any circumstances that you could imagine.

SANTORUM: Sure.

JOHNSON: I would not.

PAUL: No, I would not, because you don't achieve anything.

SANTORUM: Well it's just simply not true, Ron. The fact is that what we found is that some of this information that we find out that led to Osama Bin Laden actually came from these enhanced interrogation techniques.

PAUL: Not true.

SANTORUM: And by the way we wouldn't have been able to launch a raid into Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden if we weren't in Afghanistan.

CAIN: I heard Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say it very clearly a few months after 9/11 2001 after the tragedy, the terrorist have one objective, to kill of us and so, yes, I believe that we should do whatever means possible in order to protect the people of this nation, that's their ultimate goal.

Paul’s Muslim supporters say it’s not all about foreign policy or civil liberties. They also make the case that Islam, founded by a prophet who was a successful merchant, also has a soft spot for free markets.

Following a natural disaster that caused the price of commodities to soar, Prophet Muhammad rejected price controls, said Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, founder of the Minaret of Freedom Institute in Bethesda, Md., whose mission includes exposing Muslims to free-market thought.

“Allah grants plenty or shortage,” Muhammad said, according to Islamic tradition. “He is the sustainer and real price maker.”

It’s the kind of small-government, go-it-alone approach that resonates with Adolf’s frontier mindset.

“I think there are some very strong libertarian values in Islam, but many Muslims don’t see them,” said Adolf. “If it’s not causing harm to the community, then its really nobody’s business.”

No more aid to education. Goodbye, Department of Education.

No more government-subsidized housing. Goodbye, Department of Housing and Urban Development.

 

No more energy programs. Goodbye, Department of Energy.

No more programs to promote commerce and technology. Goodbye, Department of Commerce.

No more national parks. Goodbye, Department of the Interior.

His opposition to the very existence of the Federal Reserve — he wrote a book titled “End the Fed” — is straight out of Rand, as is his promotion of the gold standard. 

Paul would not reform the abysmally flawed and underfunded Securities and Exchange Commission, he would eliminate it.

When it says "all libertarians agree that individual rights are imprescriptible—i.e., that they are not granted (and thus cannot be legitimately taken away) by governments or by any other human agency." One may almost not notice that it says 'by any other human agency at the end of that sentence...

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Americans were awakened to find ourselves in a war, attacked by barbarians who targeted innocent civilians. This despicable act reveals how deep-seated is the hatred that has driven this war.

Though many Americans have just become aware of how deeply we are involved in this war, it has been going on for decades. We are obviously seen by the terrorists as an enemy. In war there is no more reprehensible act than for combatants to

slaughter innocent civilians who are bystanders. That is what happened yesterday. If there is such a thing, a moral war is one that is only pursued in self-defense. Those who initiate aggression against others for the purpose of occupation or merely to invoke death and destruction are unforgivable and serve only to spread wanton killing. In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress' foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming

must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient. When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be

certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security. Congress should consider using its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisals to meet our responsibilities. Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the alter of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly gave up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat. It is our job to wisely choose our policies and work hard to understand the root causes of war in which we find ourselves.

We must all pray for peace and ask for God's guidance for our President, our congressional leaders,

and all America, and for the wisdom and determination required to resolve this devastating crisis.

I am accused of not offering any “new points” against Gary Johnson. This is simply not true; rebuking my opponent’s claims about Ron Paul’s un-Libertarian stances in the way that I have -- not by saying Ron Paul did not do certain things, but rather that doing those things is a requirement of being Libertarian -- necessarily reflects badly on Gary Johnson, for, if my opponent thinks Ron Paul holds these uniquely bad stances, and I have shown them to be uniquely good, it follows that Gary Johnson does not have those claims to Libertarianism, and, indeed, runs contra.

... if my opponent thinks Ron Paul holds these uniquely bad stances, and I have shown them to be uniquely good, it follows that Gary Johnson does not have those claims to Libertarianism...

4. Finally, the correctness or value of Libertarianism (whether one should adhere to Libertarianism), being separate to the issue of how much one does adhere to it, is totally irrelevant.

Have you ever heard the phrase 'put your money where your mouth is'? Well that's what this debate is going to come down to.

At least, that's what it will come down to for Con. As for Pro, I'm unsure what it will come down to other than words that advocate worldwide anarchy and if not anarchy then amoral Libertinism, Ron Paul I am sure isn't intentionally misleading people on what he thinks Libertarianism is.

A libertine is a person who rejects moral boundaries and lives “at liberty” from constraint. The result is that the libertine usually lives a profligate, dissolute life. Libertinism is a disregard of authority or a rejection of moral boundaries. Libertinism typically involves pursuing personal desires without consideration of ethics or social mores. The term libertine almost always refers to a male who is sexually promiscuous and disinterested in monogamy.

A libertine can also be a freed slave, and that is how the word libertine is used in Acts 6:9 in the King James Version. As the deacon Stephen was working miracles and preaching in Jerusalem, “there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines . . . disputing with Stephen” (Acts 6:9). This “synagogue of the Libertines” was comprised of Jews who had been former captives, either as prisoners of Roman wars or as slaves of some kind, but had been freed. The NIV translates the phrase “Synagogue of the Freedmen.”

The term libertine was used by Reformer John Calvin to describe his political enemies. Calvin was both the religious and political leader in Geneva, and he set up a system of moral rules by which the Genevans would be governed. Those who rejected Calvin’s prohibitions against immorality, drunkenness, cursing, etc., were labeled “libertines,” since felt they ought to have the freedom (liberty) to act under moral codes of their own choosing. Over time, the concept of libertinism evolved from a reference to rejection of a particular authority into a general rejection of all moral authority.

First, I will state outright that I do not defend libertinism. As I stated on my about page, I am a reformed Christian and believe in taking responsibility for one’s actions and that a civil society must agree upon and adhere to some moral code. I also believe that moral restraint is necessary not only to the Christian, but in a free society, and so I believe that libertinism is not even compatible with political libertarianism. I cannot say however that metaphysical libertarians are not also political libertarians. The interesting thing about libertarianism is that a wide variety of personally held beliefs are acceptable in a society so long as another’s individual liberty is not being infringed upon. Philosophically speaking, the jury is still out in the debate of free will over determinism; I personally take a compatabilist approach to that debate.

Click here for relevant Venn Diagram

Those critics out there saying that Christians can’t be libertarian because of the lack of morals it has, has not given libertarianism an honest analysis, and I invite to explore it for understanding even if in the end they still disagree. At least then we can have real debate on the topic.

So for future reference, when I speak about “libertarianism” I am speaking of the political philosophy and not the metaphysical philosophy and that the oft confused libertinism is no where on my radar.

While I freely admit that political libertarianism has been defined in various forms by various people, the overarching definition addresses the proper use of force and insists that every single human being has rights that are a part of our being and not given to us by governments. It is this overarching definition that I believe is compatible with historic Christianity.

The Rule of Law

Libertarianism is not Libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that “people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything.” Rather, Libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.

Nonaggression axiom

According to the principle that libertarians call the nonaggression axiom, all acts of aggression against the rights of others—whether committed by individuals or by governments—are unjust. Indeed, libertarians believe that the primary purpose of government is to protect citizens from the illegitimate use of force. Accordingly, governments may not use force against their own citizens unless doing so is necessary to prevent the illegitimate use of force by one individual or group against another. This prohibition entails that governments may not engage in censorship, military conscription, price controls, confiscation of property, or any other type of intervention that curtails the voluntary and peaceful exercise of an individual’s rights.

Accordingly, governments may not use force against their own citizens unless doing so is necessary to prevent the illegitimate use of force by one individual or group against another.

Power

A fundamental characteristic of libertarian thinking is a deep skepticism of government power. Libertarianism and liberalism both arose in the West, where the division of power between spiritual and temporal rulers had been greater than in most other parts of the world. In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), I Samuel 8: 17–18, the Jews asked for a king, and God warned them that such a king would “take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” This admonition reminded Europeans for centuries of the predatory nature of states. The passage was cited by many liberals, including Thomas Paine and Lord Acton, who famously wrote that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Libertarian skepticism was reinforced by events of the 20th century, when unrestrained government power, among other factors, led to world war, genocide, and massive human rights violations.

A "No-Fly zone" means war; no regime change in Syria. (Oct 2016)

Stay in the U.N., but stay out of foreign interventions. (May 2016)

Take our share of Syrian refugees; not too many but not zero. (Nov 2015)

Stop replacing bad guys with slightly-less-bad guys. (Nov 2015)

America at peace with the world; avoid foreign entanglements. (Jun 2014)

U.S. in Ukraine is like Russia intervening in Puerto Rico. (May 2014)

It is far past time to divorce Pakistan. (Oct 2012)

We can no longer afford to shell out billions in foreign aid. (Feb 2012)

No foreign aid spending unless it protects U.S. interests. (Nov 2011)

Flights to Cuba ok; trade promotes friendship. (Sep 2011)

Act in US self-interest, but wary of unintended consequences. (Aug 2011)

We don't even accept elections from overseas. (Jan 2012)

Newt Gingrich's foreign policy stances compared to Paul's. (Jan 2012)

Wartime brainwashing that Islam is inherently warlike. (Apr 2011)

We're endangered as a result of our foreign policy. (Apr 2011)

Foreign aid wastes billions, with unintended consequences. (Apr 2011)

We manufactured fear about Saddam, Al Qaeda, & Ahmadinejad. (Apr 2011)

We invested $70B in Mubarak; stop spending on puppets. (Feb 2011)

Can’t spread our goodness through the barrel of a gun. (Feb 2008)

We tax people to blow up bridges overseas then rebuild them. (Jan 2008)

Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs. (Dec 2007)

Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify. (Dec 2007)

Bush humble foreign policy was hijacked into nation-building. (Dec 2007)

US must obey human rights treaties abroad. (Dec 2007)

Focus on the Iraq war and foreign policy. (Dec 2007)

Empires usually end by spending too much to maintain empire. (Dec 2007)

Stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. (Nov 2007)

No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)

Don’t pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)

Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007)

Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)

Bush mistake: ran on humble foreign policy; now runs empire. (Jun 2007)

Avoid double standard--follow international law. (Jun 2006)

Neutrality on Israel-Palestine; start by defunding both. (Dec 2001)

$140B to protect Europe creates competitive disadvantage. (Dec 1987)

Foreign aid helps dictators, not the people of aided country. (Dec 1987)

Non-Interventionism

In Latin America, standing up for allies has meant military. (Jan 2012)

Intervention in Arab Spring always backfires on us. (Oct 2011)

We installed Shah in Iran; we should mind our own business. (Aug 2011)

Worldwide interventionism requires perpetual fear. (Apr 2011)

Exceptionalism shouldn't mean using force around the world. (Feb 2011)

We spend $1 trillion a year overseas; it’s needed at home. (Sep 2008)

Stop interfering with Latin America; talk & trade instead. (Dec 2007)

Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)

Interventionism perpetuated by politician’s false patriotism. (Jun 2007)

No foreign aid; no treaties that commit US to future wars. (Jun 2007)

Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)

No nation-building; no world policeman; no pre-emptive war. (Jan 2006)

UN membership leads to impractical military conflicts. (Feb 2003)

Policy of non-intervention, neutrality, & independence. (Dec 1987)

Voting+Sponsorships

Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007)

Voted NO on supporting democratic institutions in Pakistan. (Jun 2009)

Voted NO on cooperating with India as a nuclear power. (Sep 2008)

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)

Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)

Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)

Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)

Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)

Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)

Allow Americans to travel to Cuba. (May 2000)

Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)

Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. (May 2001)

Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. (Mar 2003)

Sponsored bill to end the Cuban embargo. (Apr 2003)

Sponsored resolution to withdraw from UNESCO. (Jun 2004)

Member of House Foreign Affairs Committee. (Mar 2011)

Rated +2 by AAI, indicating pro-Arab pro-Palestine voting record. (May 2012)

Allow travel between the United States and Cuba. (Feb 2009)

Liberty Candidate: US abroad unconstitutional & unaffordable. (Sep 2010)

So how does being 'good' or 'bad' have anything to do with the debate?

Achieving Liberty
Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force.  If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed.  To achieve it, more than lip service is required.
Two choices are available.

1. A government designed to protect liberty—a natural right—as its sole objective.  The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person’s liberty.  Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and defend against foreign aggression.
   
2. A government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations.  Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer.  This is the problem for which the world has suffered throughout the ages.  Though meant to be limited it nevertheless is a 100% sacrifice of a principle that would-be-tyrants find irresistible.  It is used vigorously—though incrementally and insidiously.  Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that:  “power corrupts.”
   

Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady move toward tyrannical government.  Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny to the government this arbitrary use of aggression.  There’s no in-between.  Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly.
Today’s mess is a result of Americans accepting option #2, even though the Founders attempted to give us Option #1.
The results are not good.  As our liberties have been eroded our wealth has been consumed.  The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. They then loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system.  It’s amazing that it has worked for this long but the impasse in Washington, in solving our problems indicate that many are starting to understand the seriousness of the world -wide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues the harsher the outcome will be.