The Philosophical Incompatibility of Vantillianism and Rothbardianism

To my knowledge, Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) were never in the same room at the same time. To ask if they are "philosophically incompatible" seems inapplicable. The real question in the minds of most people, I suspect, is whether they are politically compatible.

Cornelius Van Til is all about doing philosophy and apologetics without compromising the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Word of God in the Scriptures. He's not much into politics.
Murray Rothbard, a secular Jew, is all about privatizing "the State." Wikipedia says,

Rothbard asserted that all services provided by the "monopoly system of the corporate state" could be provided more efficiently by the private sector and wrote that the state is "the organization of robbery systematized and writ large." He called fractional-reserve banking a form of fraud and opposed central banking. He categorically opposed all military, political, and economic interventionism in the affairs of other nations.

Van Til said nothing like this, but that does not mean that Rothbardianism is "incompatible" with the Christian faith as defended by Van Til. It's just two separate academic disciplines, asking different questions. (As we'll see below, it is always wrong to pursue the answer to any question without the pursuit being grounded in God's Word. Rothbard does not self-consciously ground his pursuit of answers in the Bible, but this does not mean his answers are "unBiblical.")

Let's clarify the question. Instead of asking "Are Vantillianism and Rothbardianism Philosophically Incompatible?, let's ask:

Can a person committed to Van Til's Biblical/theological core and his presuppositional methods of reasoning arrive at the political conclusions of Murray Rothbard?

Rothbard did not begin with the Bible and then attempt to "think God's thoughts after him." Being an atheist is certainly not compatible with Vantillianism. But Vantillianism does not preclude starting with an inerrant Bible and reasoning presuppositionally to a rejection of the view of the State held by Aristotle (and virtually all subsequent political scientists) and embracing the anarcho-capitalism of Murray Rothbard.

Guess which political party had these words in its platform:

As a first step in reforming government, we support elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Energy, and the elimination, defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus. Examples of agencies we seek to defund or to privatize are the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation.

That was the Republican Party National Platform back in 1996. Republicans have not kept their promises and have not abolished a single one of those bureaucracies. Would Cornelius Van Til oppose the abolition of the unconstitutional Department of Education? To anticipate one of Beall's arguments, consider this question:

Does the Republican Party Platform of 1996, by advocating the abolition of key government departments, violate the principle of "the one and the many?"

I don't think any theologian in the history of Christianity has ever asked a question remotely like that.

It seems that politicians and bureaucrats mess up everything they touch. Would it be a good thing to abolish them all? Rothbard says yes. Van Til probably has not read Rothbard's arguments (here and especially here) for doing so. When presented with the case for 100% pure laissez-faire capitalism, or "anarcho-capitalism," where services presently provided by tax-funded bureaucrats are provided by businesses and voluntary associations competing against each other for consumers, Cornelius Van Til would probably say that he is not qualified to adjudicate the question, since his field of expertise is in philosophy and theology, but he would probably mumble something about Romans 13, which is what most seminary professors of apologetics would say. I honestly don't think that if Van Til had read For A New Liberty he would have said the book contradicted or attacked his work in philosophy or theology, or felt himself qualified to refute the book on pragmatic political policy grounds.

The question "Rothbardianism" poses is:
Why not abolish all government aggression and live in a freed market?
"Rothbardianism" does not itself say "You must not, ever, consult the Bible to answer this question."

The question is continually asked online, is libertarianism compatible with Christianity? The opinion of the author is that it is not.

Libertarianism is, in my view, humanistic at its core, it is a faulty system of thought that rejects the philosophy of Christianity. Of course both terms, libertarianism and Christianity, are fairly broad. Walter Block says that there are essentially four types of libertarianism, the purest form being his own, Rothbardianism. Seeing as Rothbardianism is the only form of libertarianism that is consistent with libertarian doctrine, I will henceforth be referring to a Rothbardian system of thought when I reference libertarianism. Likewise, Christianity is just as broad, if not broader. The specific interpretation and tradition the author adheres to is that of Vantillianism and Christian Reconstructionism.

Is "Rothbardianism" inescapably humanistic?

Is Euclidean Geometry compatible with Christianity?
Isn't Euclidean Geometry humanistic at its core?

In a sense, Beall is mixing apples and oranges. The question my example poses is, "Even though Euclidean Geometry does not quote the Bible or make reference to the Triune God, can Christians use Euclidian Geometry as a tool of dominion? So Beall's question is actually, "Can Christians use the political and economic conclusions of Rothbard as tools of dominion, even though the Bible is not one of his premises? I would say the Vantillian answer is Yes, because Rothbard presupposes Biblical premises (without crediting the Bible).

Van Til might say to the Euclidean, "If the cosmos is really an undesigned, random, constantly-evolving accident, how do you know that a circle will not evolve into something non-circular before you can calculate πr²? How do you know that circles do not exist only in the synapses of your brain? Those are valid questions, but they are apologetics questions, not geometry questions. Cutting government programs -- as practiced by atheists -- is humanistic to its core, because everything atheists do is humanistic to the core: even shopping at a Farmer's Market and baking an apple pie. Is buying apples and baking a pie "incompatible" with Vantillianism? Of course not. (But the apple pie of the wicked is sin [Proverbs 21:4].)

Since this is the case I will be arguing for the incompatibility of Christianity and libertarianism given these definitions. The following is a general structure of the article: (1) Rothbardian libertarianism is anti-Trinitarian in its political philosophy and thus incompatible with Vantillian Trinitarian thought, (2) Rothbardian libertarianism is ethically incompatible with Theonomic Ethics, and thus with Christianity.

The One and the Many: Trinitarianism vs. Individualism

Christian Reconstruction has traditionally been seen to possess five points,

(1) Calvinism,
(2) Covenant Theology,
(3) Presuppositionalism,
(4) Postmillennialism, and
(5) Theonomic Ethics.

The third point is better stated as Vantillian Presuppositionalism. Van Til sought to develop a truly reformed and Trinitarian apologetic methodology. For Van Til apologetics is not merely the defense of general theism, as the more classical approaches logically lead to. It is instead the distinctives of Christian theology that root his apologetic.

(1) Regeneration (which roughly parallels Beall's "Calvinism")
(2) Theonomy
(3) Postmillennialism
(4) Presuppositionalism
(5) Libertarianism

OK, I made the last one up. Sort of. But not really. Here's how DeMar explicates the fifth point:

A decentralized social order where civil government is only one legitimate government among many other governments, including family government and ecclesiastical (church) government, is the basis for a free and orderly society.

In his Preface, Gary North gives some historical insight into the connections between Libertarianism/Individualism (Rothbard/Mises) and the formation of Christian Reconstructionism:

In the summer of 1962, I first met Rousas John Rushdoony. I had read Intellectual Schizophrenia (1961) in the second semester of my junior year in college (1962), and I had corresponded with him. I was initially interested in his views regarding the possible connection between the Bible and the insights of economist Ludwig von Mises, since he had referred to Mises in his book.¹ It was a connection that I had begun pursuing on my own as a freshman in 1960. (I am still pursuing it.)

1. Rousas J. Rushdoony, Intellectual Schizophrenia: Culture, Crisis and Education (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1961), p. 14n.

Rushdoony was teaching at a two-week summer seminar for college students sponsored by what was then called the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists, today called the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

He had only recently left the pastorate in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church to become a staff member of the William Volker Fund, which was then one of the best endowed conservative-free market foundations.... The Volker Fund financed the research and writing of several of his early books. It put him on a retainer to write The One and the Many (1971) after the Fund began to be shut down in 1964....  He later dedicated the book to the administrator of the Fund, Harold Luhnow, the nephew of the late William Volker ("Mr. Anonymous"). It was Luhnow who had agreed to hire him in 1962, when Luhnow fired a group of libertarian scholars under the leadership of F. A. Harper.⁴

4. Harper had answered by mail some of my questions about economics as early as summer, 1961, and he brought me to the Volker Fund, located in Burlingame, California, that fall, a semester before I heard of Rushdoony. He gave me several books at that time, and a year later sent me Murray Rothbard's incomparable Man, Economy, and State, after he set up his own organization, the Institute for Humane Studies, in 1962.

Rushdoony sent me Cornelius Van Til's apologetics syllabus in the fall of 1962, which I read and came to accept before I graduated from college that June. He hired me to come to the Volker Fund as a summer intern in 1963, and I lived with his family in Palo Alto. Essentially, I was paid $500 a month (a princely sum in those days) to read books. It was during that summer that I read the major works of Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, and Wilhelm Roepke. It was the most important "summer vacation" of my life.

While North and Rushdoony can be called "libertarians," they are not Rothbardians, in that Rothbard does not argue for "minarchy" (a very small State), but for anarchy (no State at all). But doing economics and political science with Rothbard (and Geometry with Euclid)  is not incompatible with Vantillianism.

“A biblical Trinitarian cannot argue, for example, that in every respect unity is prior to multiplicity. Nor can he argue that diversity in God is only apparent, existing only in our own minds. In Scripture, as we shall see, God is both one and many, and the balance of unity and diversity in God ensures that balance of unity and diversity within the created world.” [1]

I don't believe this is a Theonomic [Law/Word-centered] way to do "politics."

Theonomic Politics

Like Beall, I claim a commitment to "Theonomy." A true Theonomist takes a strictly Biblical approach to "the State." The Theonomist believes the Bible is "textbook" of political science and a "blueprint" for the construction of a peaceful and prosperous economy. "Theonomy" does not mean starting with a principle ("the equal ultimacy of the one and the many") and attempting to deduce concrete social policy. Theonomy means obeying the Bible. When we implement the commands of the Creator, society is organized in a way that the one and the many are equally ultimate. It is the result of obeying the Word of God, not a result of our philosophical deductions.

Every verse in the Bible should be treated as law, regardless of the literary genre in which it appears in Scripture. I believe "anarcho-capitalism" is the most obvious conclusion one can draw from the commandments "Thou shalt not kill" (or take vengeance against your enemies) and "Thou shalt not steal" (even by calling it "taxation").

Not only does a Theonomist demand that "the State" strictly follow the provisions of God's Law, a Theonomist will ask if "the State" is even permitted to exist under a strict construction of Biblical Law.

I believe God is our Sovereign. Isaiah 33:22 says God is our King, our Lawgiver, and our Judge, and He will save us. That's all three branches of government (in the U.S. Constitution) and also "the fourth branch" of government: "The Administrative State." "Salvation" in the Bible is more than just a ticket to heaven when you die. Most of the time "salvation" means political prosperity. In fact, I argue that "salvation" means "freedom from archists." But this does not come as a logical deduction from the principle of "the one and the many." It comes from following the express provisions of God's Law in the Bible.

When we apply God's Law in every area of life, life is good.
"Rothbardianism" asks, "Would it be a good thing to abolish all coercive monopolies?" and answers, "Yes."
Euclidiean Geometry asks, "Is it a good thing to calculate the area of a circle using πr²? and answers "Yes."
"Vantillianism" asks, "Can there be good without God?" and  "How do we determine what is 'good'?" and answers, "By submitting to the authority of God's Word in the Bible."

Is "Vantillianism" compatible with "Rothbardianism" and "Euclideanism?"

The real question, as I said above regarding Ron Paul, is "How many tax-funded monopolistic bureaucracies does God's Law in the Bible require human beings to have in their society?" I agree with Rothbard that society would be better off without any tax-funded monopolies. Rothbard doesn't come to this conclusion based on the Bible, but I do, based on a reading of the Bible which finds no command from God to form tribute-funded monopolies.

John M. Frame, in terms of his "perspectivalism," would say we need to get our moral values from the Bible ("normative" perspective), but we have to apply those norms to the world around us, and that means we have an obligation to discover the actual facts ("situational" perspective). Van Til taught me about the "normative' perspective, and Rothbard helped me see the facts of politics and economics as they really are.

Van Til, with all his brilliance, failed to apply his one and many motif to any field outside of metaphysics. It was R.J. Rushdoony, in his 1971 work The One and the Many, that took Van Til’s motif and applied it to civil government. [2] Rushdoony speaks of a Trinitarian form of government, one with a true balance between unity and diversity. For Rushdoony, those philosophies that seek to advance ontological unity always logically lead to a form of civil government which is tyrannical and statist in nature (one). The exact opposite is true for those who accept the ultimate diversity of the world, in such a case civil government is reflective of that stance and individualism and anarchy prevail. Both of these positions are on radical ends of the political spectrum, and given Vantillianism, both of these are unbiblical anti-trinitarian positions.

The Trinitarian perspective, therefore, is a balance between individualism and collectivism. As God is both an individual [3] and a collective within his very nature. Since reality, including covenantal reality, is analogous of God’s Triune nature, [4] the ordained civil and institutional structures God has put in place are likewise analogous of God’s Triunity. This is to say that Trinitarian civil government neither focuses on individualism or collectivism as most other philosophies do. It instead focuses on a balance between the two concepts.

1. The "Powers that be" are demonic (compare e.g., Ephesians 6:12)
2. Do not resist evil ("Pacifism," not the Second Amendment and violent revolution)
3. The State is an example of God's Providence, but not His prescription.

I believe the passage (Romans 12:14 - 13:7) commands "pacifism." Not "passive-ism," or simple non-resistance, but actively loving our enemy, the State. Jesus commands us to love our enemies. This means a heartfelt desire to see our enemy converted and redeemed. Taking up muskets against the Red Coats violates Christ's commands (and Paul's in Romans 13).

I believe the Bible is an anti-war/anti-imperialism manifesto. It says God is our Governor/Government, and it was always sinful for man to set up visible "gods" to rule them (e.g., 1 Samuel 8). Nowhere in the Bible does God command human beings to form "the State." What the state does is prohibited by Biblical Law (steal, kill, take vengeance). Concerning Romans 13 ("the powers that be are ordained of God"), James Benjamin Green, in his Harmony of the Westminster Standards, writes:

It is not meant that God directly ordained the state by saying to man, Thou shalt set up a government or organize a commonwealth.

Romans 13 does not say Caesar has a moral right to invade and conquer. It only prohibits followers of the executed Christ from resisting that conquest and occupation. God controls the conquerors. We should not resist them. Even if that means enslavement (see the juxtaposition of the State and slavery in 1 Peter 2).  I have previously drawn the comparison between "the State" and the Mafia. In a symposium edited by Gary North called "Tactics of Christian Resistance," we read these words:

When Esau came out with 400 armed men to kill him, Jacob bought his present-oriented brother off with a series of handsome gifts. In all these things we see Jacob acting in a shrewd and non-confrontative manner. There was no rebellion in him. He sought to avoid trouble, and when trouble came, he acted in a shrewd and wise manner to turn it away. Jacob showed himself to be a master of deception and avoidance when dealing with tyranny. He knew that now was not the time to fight, and that God would invest him with dominion when He and His people were ready. Jesus had the same philosophy: "I say to you, do not resist him who is evil, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your cloak also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two" (Matt. 5:39-41). The evil man is anyone who has power and abuses it. He may be a powerful man in town who sues you, and you cannot win in court; it is wisest to let him slap you around a bit, as Isaac let the Philistines slap him. Resistance accomplishes nothing.³¹
     31. ... Concerning evil powers and authorities..., we are to deal with our rebellious hearts by going out of our way to be deferential to them, as to the Lord. Also, we are ordered to submit to the powers that be, not to any and every law some human authority chooses to put on the books. [See note below - kc]  The powers that be may include not only civil officials but also neighborhood bosses and Cosa Nostra operatives.

Rape is a good analogy. If God sovereignly brings a rapist into a woman's room, and she cannot overpower him (say, because he is armed), then she may as well submit. There is no sin on her part, and resistance quite probably will only worsen matters.⁶⁰

60. This may not square with Victorian ethics, but it is the position taken by Augustine in The City of God. There is no virtue, Augustine points out, in a woman's killing herself to avoid rape.

The Mafia is another example. If the Mafia runs the neighborhood and demands protection money, pay it. They are part of the "powers that be." God put them there, for reasons of His own.

Another example is a conquering army. Our conscious loyalty should continue to be to our country, but our external obedience for a time must be to the conqueror.

So God "ordains" Caesar and the Mafia, and commands us to follow the example of Jesus in relating to these demonic forces ("in His steps" -- 1 Peter 2:21), but the Mafia is not a Theonomic institution, unlike the Family and the businesses a family may create. It would be curious to use Beall's words and say

Since reality, including covenantal reality, is analogous of God’s Triune nature, [4] The Mafia God has put in place are likewise analogous of God’s Triunity.

The Trinitarian/Reconstructionist perspective is:
When God's Law in its totality is obeyed by everyone, and serves as a blueprint for the development of human culture,
    • the individual flourishes
    • and the entire society prospers.

If everyone is a self-sufficient "survivalist" and never trades with anyone else, the combined standard of living of these "individualists" will be lower than if these individuals trade with each other under a division of labor in a free market. Viewing the market as a collective, the GDP is higher under a division of labor. Individuals are expressing their specialized gifts better, and the economy (viewed collectively) is better off as well. Although the economy as a whole (the "One") is better off, the "many" individuals are not sacrificing anything by functioning under a division of labor; in fact they are expressing more their individuality.

Rothbard's position is that human society (the "one") can exist without aggression against individuals -- either individually ("criminals") or collectively ("the State").
Rothbard would say that the one and the many both benefit from anarcho-capitalism, where the "one" = the market as a whole, and the "many" = individual actors in the market.
I don't think Van Til could refute these claims (at least not without standing on an older interpretation of Romans 13, which I think is up for debate).

“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.” [5]

Friedman is, of course, making the point that freedom ought to be the focus of a society. This may be true in some circumstances, but it is not true of all circumstances. The focus of a biblical society is neither on equality (collectivism) nor is it on freedom (individualism), it is instead a focus on the glory of God (Trinitarianism). This is the case, primarily, because such a societal structure represents the eternal societal structure which is God, but it is also the case because God works covenantally in such a pattern. God does not only make covenant with the individual, often a covenant is given to a specific person, but applied to the whole (Genesis 22:15-18). Likewise, in the giving of the ceremonial system, the law is given to the whole to point to the individual, Christ (Gal. 3:24). Thus the concepts of individuality and collectivity are both intertwined together. In such a unique way that one cannot have the former without the later [sic]. Self-government and family government are not more essential than church government or civil government, any more than the persons of the Trinity are more essential than the absolute personality which is God himself. If it were, then I dare say we would not be Trinitarian theologically, but would instead, logically, be worshiping either a single monad (Unitarianism) or else be worshiping a plethora of deities (polytheism). On a further point, it would seem, philosophically, that the two concepts of individualism and collectivism are harmonious, and necessarily so. Can individualism exist outside of the collective? Can collectivism exist without the individual? If man is alone, a true individual, then there exists no basis for man to even know who he is, or even that he is an individual. This is the general problem with all single monadic deities. Furthermore, man’s primary and unique function amongst creation is his ability to reason. However, to reason presupposes others to reason with. Which is why rationality is dependent on Trinitarianism. Likewise, the collective cannot exist without its individual members. Man cannot be devoid, therefore, from society as a whole. Libertarianism, however, does not and cannot take such a balanced approach. For libertarianism, the most foundational actor in society is the individual man. Any notion of collectivism is thus inorganic, as collectivism can only come by the means of individual human action. Not so given a Reformed Kuyperian perspective of governance. In such a system government is organic and necessary. Human government is analogous of divine government and thus exists by decree. Ludwig von Mises, a prominent libertarian philosopher and economist, wrote,

Rothbard would say that the State violates "natural law." If asked about whether anarcho-capitalism is "Biblical," Rothbard would say he's not an expert in what the Bible says, but he might note that some fanatics have claimed that the Bible (or God through special revelation) has given them permission to plunder others and enslave them. I'm not an "expert" on the Bible either, but that doesn't mean I don't have strong opinions on the matter (I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night).

What is the Real "One" (Collective)?

A Theonomic Libertarian can assert that the individual matters, and also that the market matters, and be true to the "one-and-many" principle. The collective is society, not "the State." There is a world of difference between these two. "Society" or "a Free Market Economy" is a collective in a true and broad sense, whereas "the State" is more like one individual actor in an economy, although a disproportionately powerful actor.

I think Beall's fundamental mistake is seeing "the State" as the only legitimate "collective," (the "one") whereas I see "the State" as an immoral and unethical individual (albeit corporate) actor in the larger social/economic collective. (In some places Rushdoony's ambiguous "old-school" statements can be interpreted this way.) Granted "the State" always claims to purely and beneficiently embody the best interests of the collective society, such as Rousseau claiming that the State manifests "the General Will." Throughout history, the State has claimed the status of the divine savior of the collective, the high priest, and the mediator between the collective and the gods, the focal link in the "chain of being." The State often claims to be the "One," which justifies its rule over the "many." But these are the false claims of a false religion.

The "many" need to understand that the State is not the "one." "The State" is a dysfunctional or criminal element of the "many," along with the Mafia, and along with families, businesses, schools, and churches, which can also violate God's commandments.

A Freed Market is a humanly-governed collective, even without "the State." Every family governs his own business, imposing government on employees, and paying other actors to behave in certain ways. Every individual engages in economic planning by submitting himself as an individual to the demands of the prices set by the Market-Collective. The "One" -- the market -- can be Christian in function if the "Many" conduct their economic affairs in a Christian manner (by working and trading voluntarily, rather than using aggression). A group of people calling themselves "the State" is not necessary for "the one and the many" to be perfectly "balanced."

“For a social collective has no existence and reality outside of the individual members’ actions. The life of a collective is lived in the actions of the individuals constituting body. There is no social collective conceivable which is not operative in the actions of some individuals. The reality of a social integer consists in its directing and releasing definite actions on the part of individuals. Thus the way to a cognition of collective wholes is through an analysis of the individuals’ actions.” [6]

Imagine this hypothetical scenario: A race of advanced extraterrestrials contacts earth and makes this offer: Let the people vote in an election on whether to abolish the State entirely. If the people vote to eradicate the State, the aliens will give us a cure for cancer, show us the technology of Star Trek's "transporter beam," and double the lifespan of every human being. The results of the election are overwhelmingly "yes." All government entities are converted into corporations, and their stocks are sold on the NYSE. None of these new corporations have the authority to tax. All must compete with similar businesses or charities for customers or donations. There are no laws against starting new businesses to provide services which "the government" once claimed to provide.

Do we now have "anarchy?"

Technically, we do, because we no longer have "archists." Nobody has the right to impose his will on other people by force (e.g., by military invasion, SWAT teams, being locked in a cage to be raped by a psychopath, having your wages garnished, etc.).

Do we now have "chaos?"

There might be some disruptions of service during the transition, but I would say that within 90 days competing businesses will have covered all services that are actually demanded by consumers.

The contrast is often drawn between "the State" and "anarchy." There is never "anarchy." There are always families, businesses, schools, charities, and churches within a society.

When it comes to "the one and the many," The State is not the "one."

The State usually CLAIMS to be the "one," or claims to manifest "the General Will" of the many, but this is a false claim of an idolatrous false religion. The State is not the "one," the State is merely a dysfunctional or criminal element of the "many," along with families, businesses, schools, and churches.

"Therefore" is ambiguous. It is not because of evolution that a creationist could say that collectives cannot exist without individual actors. Remember above Beall said "the collective cannot exist without its individual members." That's what Mises is saying when he talks about the "Market," or "society."

“Nobody ventures to deny that nations, states, municipalities, parties, religious communities, are real factors determining the course of human events. Methodological individualism, far from contesting the significance of such collective wholes, considers it as one of its main tasks to describe and to analyze their becoming and their disappearing, their changing structures, and their operation. And it chooses the only method fitted to solve this problem satisfactorily.”

Beall criticizes Rothbardianism for claiming that the State is an abstraction, but it is in fact Beall who believes the State is an abstraction.  Beall sounds like he's discovered something ominous about Mises when he says "THEN" (a logical connector, like "therefore") the government "is a mere abstraction."  Mises was not talking about a small group of economic planners calling themselves "the government." He was talking about "society" or "the market." "The economy" is indeed an "abstraction."

Government is not an "abstraction." It is the concrete embodiment of sinful aggression committed by actual individuals against other individuals.
"The government" is the violent usurpation of the order-creating acts of individuals as they govern their families, schools, businesses, charities, and churches. What Mises claims is that "the economy" is an abstraction, and the attempts by Keynesians and other socialists to analyze "the economy" and make plans to manipulate it by aggression against certain actors in the market will fail, because "the economy" is not a single entity that engages in subjective evaluations and then acts (e.g., by buying or selling).

I believe the Bible, as it records the history of the human race, shows that "governments" are founded by rebels against God's Law. "The State" represents human autonomy.

For if the state is a mere abstraction, merely conceptualized by the autonomous mind of the individual, then it logically follows that individual actors can take justice into their own hands, without the institutional authority of the state. This is the underlying folly of anarchy. When authority is not given, and everything outside of the evolution of the individual is an abstraction, then authority itself must be conceptualized, leading not to freedom, as the libertarian desires, but to tyranny. For anarchy will always lead to statism. Just as statism will always fall in a rebellious revolutionary anarchical overthrow. Man needs both, not just philosophically, but spiritually and physically.

Ethics: Theonomy vs. The Non-Aggression Principle

The other major point of contention between Christianity and libertarianism is the question over ethics. Ethically, the two philosophies are incompatible. Christianity is a system of law-ethics which has traditionally been considered a type of divine command theory. The specific Christian ethic that I adhere to is theonomic ethics. Theonomy comes from two greek words, theos (god) and nomos (law). Theonomy advocates for the objective ethical normativity of the law-word of God found in the Bible. It also presupposes moral continuity between the testaments of the Bible. That is to say that what God has revealed as ethical in the older testament continues to be binding today during the new testament dispensation. The only hermeneutical exception to the rule is that of progressive revelation within the new testament, meaning the only ethical principles that are or can be modified from the law itself, are those modifications given by Christ and his apostles in the newer testament. Libertarianism takes a far simpler approach to ethics and ethical theory. Libertarianism advocates for an ethic that is twofold, (1) the non-aggression principle (NAP), and (2) a Rothbardian view of private property rights. Most libertarians are Kantian in their approach to ethics, which is to say they have a deontological tendency. [9] A deontological ethic teaches that objective moral standards exist and that man ought to follow them by duty. What is moral then has nothing to do with the inwardness of man (existential ethics) or the happiness of the most people in society (teleological ethics). But instead, believes that duty is duty and that a good moral man does his duty for duty’s sake. The NAP is, therefore, seen as axiomatic. That is to say, the NAP is the “first principle” of a libertarian philosophy. It is taken for granted that the concept of non-aggression is that ultimate ethical truth that all men are duty bound to follow. This is, of course, an epistemic question. But it should be noted that such a deontological approach is left with no epistemological basis for ethical knowledge. Therefore, the NAP is an objectivist ethic with a subjective epistemology, which of course leaves us with no basis for an objective ethic in the first place.

(1) Does the Bible permit anyone to aggress against anyone else?

I don't think so. I think the prohibition of murder and theft rules out "the State."

The second question is

(2) Does any non-Christian system of ethics or politics -- whether anarcho-capitalism, "mixed economy," fascism or socialism/communism -- have any epistemological basis for its policy prescriptions? Van Til would say the answer to (2) is no if it is done on an atheistic foundation. He would probably decline to give an answer to (1), as it is outside his field of expertise, but would probably say something about Romans 13.

With that being said, the libertarian ethic is really rather simple; do not aggress against another person or his property unless you are engaging in aggression to protect your person or property against an aggressor. That is, aggression is only justified if one has first aggressed against you. Which brings us to our second point of the libertarian ethic, private property rights. Libertarianism advocates for a Rothbardian view of private property that is largely built around homesteading. It is often argued that the NAP cannot be separated from this concept of private property. For to know who the aggressor in a situation like theft is, one would have to know who the rightful owner of the item in question is. Walter Block gives an example of someone repossessing his property from an aggressor,

I think the Rothbardian formula for determining "ownership" of property is as good as any other I've heard. Like using Euclidean Geometry, it is not inconsistent with Vantillianism.

“…if A reaches into B’s pocket, pulls out his wallet and runs away with it, we cannot know that A is the aggressor and B the victim. It may be that A is merely repossessing his own wallet, the one B stole from him yesterday. But given a correct grounding in property rights, the non-aggression axiom is a very powerful tool in the war of ideas. For most individuals believe, and fervently so, that it is wrong to invade other people or their property.” [10]

Given libertarianism, therefore, there is no such concept as a victimless crime. All actions that are criminal are the result of aggression against another and/or his property. Such a perspective may sound palatable to many people, however, it is not a Christian perspective on law and punishment. Christianity advocates for civil punishments against non-aggressors in the Bible. God calls for the death penalty to be applied to anyone found guilty of; blasphemy (Lev. 24:16), lying about one’s virginity (Deut. 22:20-21), practicing magic or sorcery (Exodus 22:18), being a rebellious son (Deut. 21:18-21), engaging in homosexual acts (Lev. 20:13), etc. In each of these cases, and many others, a penalty is given for an action that was not aggressive on the part of the criminal. The libertarian phrase “no victim, no crime” cannot be presented as Christian. Remember, the Christian idea of the state is that the state exists for the glory of God. When God establishes the institution of the state, he does so specifically to punish crime, crime that at times is only criminal because it perverts society as a whole. The concepts of freedom and liberty given Christianity and libertarianism are in conflict here. Given Christianity, man is free, but he is not free to break the law of God. He may not engage in sexual acts that contradict God’s creative order, he may not abandon his wife and take another for himself, he may not worship any other gods openly in public, even if he is on his own private property. He has no right to build an Islamic mosque upon his own land. For given Christianity society and its laws do not exist, primarily, to defend and establish the rights and freedoms of men. They exist to defend the glory and honor of God. Libertarianism defends uncensored freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech. Christianity is not a system of uncensored freedoms. As a result, it is not a system that is non-aggressive. In fact, in many ways it is aggressive, it is aggressive against evildoers that seek to lead society away from God, It is aggressive against actions that bring national curses upon a people instead of national blessings (Deut. 28), and its even aggressive against those evildoers who seek to do this without the use of physical violence. In fact, it often uses the state as a means to accomplish its ends. Libertarianism sees the state as “a bandit gang writ large.” [11] It sees the state as being inherently evil since everything the state does is done by coercion. This is true, everything the state does is done by coercion, biblically speaking, however, that is not always a bad thing. Biblically speaking, coercion is necessary for a proper and prosperous society. Now, do not get me wrong, I do not wish for the state to act in any area that God has not given it responsibility over. In this sense I believe in a small state, since God’s decree justifies a small state… but a state nevertheless.

I question the claim that the moral system of Jesus Christ advocates or requires "civil punishments." The word "civil" connotes a political, tax-funded monopoly.  The Bible does not say that the purpose of "capital punishment" in the case of blasphemy, homosexuality, etc., is to "punish" the perpetrator, The language of the Bible concerns shedding the blood of the perpetrator, making atonement for the polluting of the land that "capital" crimes inflict.
And I agree with Beall and disagree with someone who left a comment (below) to the effect that capital punishment of an offender in the Bible depends on the offender aggressing against someone else. God did not require physical aggression before declaring the land to be polluted and requiring the offender's blood to be shed. But after Christ shed His blood, the ritual shedding of blood which is found in the Old Covenant is no longer appropriate. I have argued this here: A Theonomic Argument Against Capital Punishment. It was not a "civil" "punishment," but a priestly ritual to secure atonement for the land. Even if shedding the blood of an individual is necessary in our day for social atonement, the family or "the church" or competing businesses are not barred by an express provision of God's Law from doing so. God does not give a small group of people calling themselves "the State" a monopoly on this ritual.

I no longer believe that God "establishes the institution of the State." See the link above, "Anarcho-Theonomy -- Why Theonomists Must Be Anarchists." I have written "95 Theses on a Stateless Society" which goes through the Bible and shows that James Benjamin Green was correct when he said that God predestines the State, but never commanded anyone as a moral imperative to create one, and that in fact (IMO) formation and maintenance of "the State" is a violation of God's Law, particularly the prohibitions of murder, theft, and vengeance.

One might argue that building an Islamic mosque on one's own property is a "religious" sin, but that's a separate question from whether I can "vote" for a friend of mine to destroy a Muslim's property and kill him because my friend is now "the State." This is a longer discussion, and requires that we study the Scriptures like a Berean (Acts 17:11). We should ask questions like these:

• Did God give the task of "capital punishment" to the family (Genesis 9:4-6), or to people calling themselves "the State?"
• Was the ritual shedding of blood which we call "capital punishment" a part of "the judicial law" or part of "the ceremonial law?"
• If we still need to shed blood after Calvary, can the family of the victim hire one of a number of competing private sector business to administer it, or must the job be done by tax-funded bureaucrats?
• Where in Scripture does God give "the State" any responsibilities, and as a monopoly protected from competition and funded by coercively-extorted funds?
• How could "the Church" take over the resolution of disputes in a stateless society?
• Doesn't "national defense" violate the commands of Christ (Matthew 5:39-41)?

Opening the Bible and asking these questions is not "incompatible" with the teachings of Cornelius Van Til.

Conclusion

The only way to present Christianity as libertarian, therefore, is to either redefine Christianity or else redefine libertarianism. One could claim that Christianity is libertarianism with the correct ethical system, that is, it is the Bible and God’s law that define what man has liberty to do. However, this is to redefine libertarianism. Moreover, it is to present an arbitrary definition of libertarianism. For if Christianity is allowed to redefine the libertarian ethical theory, than any philosophy is also free to do so. Nothing then stops a statist, fascist philosophy from simply saying, our ethic defines what liberty is, therefore, we are truly libertarian. I seem to recall John Pipper [sic] playing this same redefining game with philosophical terms when he promoted his view of “Christian Hedonism.” 

Christian Anarcho-Capitalism

In general, "the State" is more like an individual actor in an economy, and less like a "collective." The economy is the collective in the Vantillian individual-collective/many-one analysis, not "the State." I think Rushdoony is less than clear on this issue, because of his use of the word "anarchy" as a pejorative.

[1] John M. Frame, “The Doctrine of God”, (P&R Publishing: Phillipsburg, NJ, 2002) pg. 227.

[2] R.J. Rushdoony, “The One and the Many”, (Thoburn Press: Fairfax, VA, 1971) pg. 2. “If the one in ultimate, then individuals are sacrificed to the group. If the many be ultimate, then unity is sacrificed to the will of the many, and anarchy prevails.”

[3] Cornelius Van Til, “An Introduction to Systematic Theology”, (P&R Publishing: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1974) pg. 229.

[4] John M. Frame, “The Doctrine of God”, (P&R Publishing: Phillipsburg, NJ, 2002) pg.

[5] Milton & Rose Friedman, “Free to Choose”, (HBJ: New York, NY 1980) p.148

[6] Ludwig von Mises, “Human Action”, (Ludwig von Mises Institute: Auburn, AL, 1998) pg. 42.

[7] ibid., “Nobody ventures to deny that nations, states, municipalities, parties, religious communities, are real factors determining the course of human events. Methodological individualism, far from contesting the significance of such collective wholes, considers it as one of its main tasks to describe and to analyze their becoming and their disappearing, their changing structures, and their operation. And it chooses the only method fitted to solve this problem satisfactorily.”

[8] ibid.

[9] A consequentialist approach is also possible, however, it seems to be inconsistent with libertarian doctrine. As an example, Utilitarianism teaches that what is moral is dependent on the outcome of a given action. If an action leads to more happiness (or whatever the specific philosopher wants to root as the good) either for the individual or for the collective (Sidgwick applies Utilitarian theory to the individual in an attempt to not justify murder, which is a common problem given a Utilitarian ethic) then the action is considered moral. Gary North shows that the ethical root of socialist economic theory is Utilitarianism. This is of course against the teachings of Laissez-faire capitalism, the Libertarian economic theory. (Gary North, “Sovereignty & Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis”, Point Five Press: Dallas, GA, 2012 [1987] [1982], pg. 1:63-73).

[10] Walter E. Block, “The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism”, February 17, 2003, www.lewrockwell.com

[11] Murray N. Rothbard, “Ethics and Liberty”, (New York University Press: New York, NY, 1998) pg. 169

Fred Beall

Administrator

Fred Beall is married to his wife Rose Beall, they have two sons; Frederick Raymond Beall, IV & Thomas Henry Clay Beall. Fred and his family are members of Living Word Church, a small conservative church in Pharr, Texas. You can contact Fred at fredbeall92@gmail.com

Adrian Nielsen