As I have evolved politically into libertarianism from a more conservative upbringing, I have encountered several arguments from people who I interact with as they attempt to dismiss the political philosophy that I have adopted. These would-be proselytes almost universally admit they agree with the small-government platform of the Libertarian Party, but there’s always one or two planks that prevent them from stepping away from the comfort of the party and ideology that they’ve embraced for years. I understand that way of thinking because I was there not too long ago as I embarked on my quest to discover my political identity. It was through much thought and soul-searching and some prayer that led me to the point I was able to leave my old party and join the more socially liberal Libertarian Party. I hope you will come away from this with a better understanding of how a Conservative Southern Christian is able to align with the Libertarian Party with a clear conscience.
To begin, I will quote the preamble to the LP Platform. The full text can be found at https://www.lp.org/platform/.
“As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.”
Not too sinister, right? It reminds me of another document that is quite familiar:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson was much more concise in his wording, but he basically said the same thing as the LP platform. The basic premise of the libertarian philosophy, as well as the party platform, mirrors the Declaration of Independence: that all people are by default granted with the right to exist as individuals and pursue their passions, ideas, and desires without interference from other individuals or their proxy, in this case, the government. It is on that foundational premise we delve into 4 planks of the LP platform that I have heard the most pushback on from the conservative Christian circles in which I almost exclusively exist.
- Right out of the gate, Plank 1.1 states, “Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.”
This is the plank that comes the closest to the allegation that “Libertarians just want to legalize weed.” In a nutshell, yes, Libertarians want to legalize weed, but not because of the reasons that are commonly attributed to them. I am sure there are a great many that wish to partake in marijuana products in a manner that will not land them in jail, but the premise is much less self-serving. The platform itself says “individuals have the freedom and responsibility…” (emphasis mine) As I have already stated, I am a Christian (which does not entitle me to any special authority on the subject) and I have never consumed marijuana in any form, but I recognize the God-given freedom and responsibility to make choices that affect my body and my body alone. The right to do so is not and should not be given over to a body of elected officials. On the same token, it is just as preposterous for a city mayor to put a ban on Big Gulp sodas or large bags of potato chips. People do not need to be protected from themselves. As an aside, a common argument that is levied against legalization of weed is that DUI’s will skyrocket and there will be people out there driving and working while under the influence of marijuana. To that I say two things: first, there are already laws against operating machinery and vehicles while under the influence, and secondly, I have worked in the automotive service industry for the last 8 years and off and on for 15 years; if you saw/smelled how many people already smoke while driving while it is illegal, you would realize the law really is not a deterrent anyway.
- Plank 1.4 “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Until such time as the government stops its illegitimate practice of marriage licensing, such licenses must be granted to all consenting adults who apply.”
Gay marriage. This topic is one I have had to do a lot of consideration on. Believers of the Bible are familiar with how the Bible describes God’s handling of the practice of homosexuality. There is even a legal penalty for sodomy in today’s law code, and it gets its very name from the city that is most famous for its practice of it; the city of Sodom that God destroyed because of it, as described in the Book of Genesis. As a Christian, I am not a supporter of any movement that promotes the practice, but I can in good faith stand on the principle that it is not something that should be governed by a system of government that promises equal protection, and that protection encompasses life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On a greater scale, however, the party platform maintains that government should not be an arbiter of the marriage contract, but that marriage should be a voluntary contract between consenting adults without permission from or regulation by the government. Until the government gets out of the business of regulating domestic partnerships, it is obligated to grant equal protection to all relationships. This also applies to polygamy, and I will not venture down the road of whether God approves of that form of relationship, but the Christian must also remember if God had placed the same restrictions on marriage that the American government does, many of the Biblical persons, including most of the heads of the 12 Tribes of Israel, would never have existed. Food for thought.
- Plank 1.5 “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue, and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
I am not going to mount a defense of this plank. Abortion is a sensitive issue, as the LP recognizes, but that is where I part ways with the platform. My personal belief is that if there is even an ounce of possibility that life begins at the moment of conception, we have a sacred duty to defend and protect it. If science one day proves life does not actually begin until there is a heartbeat or some other physiological function, then maybe I can be persuaded to acquiesce, but until then, I wholly believe this is one of the few issues that the government does have an obligation to restrict, rather than regulate. Complete abolition of human abortion is the hill on which I personally stand, and there are quite a few in the Libertarian Party who share that stance with me. One solution to this divisive issue is to remove this plank from the party platform completely, a move that I would support because the existence of the plank drives away individuals who, like me, find it unacceptable, and therefore, unlike me, are unwilling to meet the party on the other areas of common ground.
- 2.10 “The Libertarian Party supports the decriminalization of prostitution. We assert the right of consenting adults to provide sexual services to clients for compensation, and the right of clients to purchase sexual services from consenting sex workers.”
This final issue is one that I personally have no definitive opinion on at the time of this writing. Sex work is a risky business for all parties involved, but unlike other dangerous occupations like building skyscrapers or whaling or coal mining, it is conducted for the sole purpose of pleasure in exchange for money and is often considered the oldest occupation on earth. I am not going to defend the practice of prostitution, but much like marriage, the government really overstepped its authority when it decided to criminalize it. Poor or desperate people should not be imprisoned because they chose to make a living off a vice rather than something “respectable.” There is an argument to be made for regulating sex work so that it is done safely and still criminalizes human trafficking and pimps, but this is not something I will explore in this essay.
Christians, how many prostitutes, homosexuals, or adulteresses did Jesus turn over to the authorities for their sins? As I recall, He implored them to turn from their sin, but He did not look down on them or condemn them. Instead, He chastised those who condemned them. Think about it.
Maybe I did not change any minds. If not, that is too bad, because I wholly believe if we Christians cannot embrace true liberty and freedom, we will be seen in history as those who stood in the way of freedom. Did our forefathers and mothers flee tyrants in the desire to worship how they saw fit only to have their descendants persecute those who do not operate under the same moral code as they do? Rather than throw the book at “sinners,” we should be imploring them to turn from their ways. This answers the question that was so popular two decades ago, What Would Jesus Do? By using the government as our enforcer, does it bring people closer to Christ or drive them away?
Never forget, the power that we give government to enforce our will can be used against us when the seat of power changes hands. Haven’t we seen that happen more lately? It is time to reverse course and get the government out the way of more things.
My belief in God will not allow me to solicit prostitutes or condone gay marriage or promote abortion and I do not ever intent to partake in drugs, but my conscience is clear in my stance and support of the only political party to say loud and clear: Keep the government out of our lives! Government has a place and a role, but it is not in our homes, bedrooms, or business practices, so long as we do not violate the rights of other individuals. That principle is the basic premise of freedom that we owe to our neighbors as well as the future generations.
The Objective Perspective 