This writing came from a Facebook page that I follow. I found it to be right on the mark. People are accusing Libertarians of being satanic, this is the perfect counter. The writing is on the same order as my post about Bastiat’s “The Law”, it is titled “Legal Plunder” read it here.

This is libertarian philosophy from a Christian perspective.

“I hold this truth to be self-evident, that the entire human race is equally created in the image of God, and that we have been endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. We, the entire human race, have the right to our lives, liberty, and our property. With this statement, it should become evident that my secular libertarian views are firmly laid on the foundation of my faith and belief that we are created.

On life

As a Christian, I believe that ALL human life is sacred. God’s commandment, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) is a law that applies to all. I believe that the only being in all of existence with the moral authority to take human life is the author of it. Therefore, I am opposed to abortion, unjustified war, and the death penalty. While I do believe that we have the right to defend our lives with violent force, if necessary, I do not believe that it is morally justified to take a life for any other reason. If it is immoral to take human life, then it follows that it is equally immoral to support a government that engages in the immoral act of murder.

On liberty

I believe that the only being in all of existence with the moral authority to govern the lives of man is man’s creator. This understanding has led me to the conclusion that neither I, nor anyone else, is morally justified in dictating to another how he or she may live. How one chooses to live is a decision that is between that individual and God, and God Himself has given us free will that we may be free to choose to accept Him or not. As C. S. Lewis states in Mere Christianity,

“God created things that had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature, which had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good, it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that work like machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that, they must be free” (52).

Some argue that because man is imperfect it is necessary to use coercion, backed with the threat of violent force, to ensure a stable society. However, there is a hole in this argument. Arming human beings and granting them the authority to use coercion and violence does not magically transform them into morally superior beings. In fact, the historical evidence proves just the opposite. It is in the nature of man that once having gained power, he seeks to expand it and will not stop at oppression, violence, and tyranny in violation of our God given rights to achieve that goal. Because I believe that the only being in all of existence that has the moral authority to govern the lives of man is man’s creator, I cannot support a government of men, who will always seek to violate the right to life, liberty, and property of other human beings.

On property

It is one of the tenets of my faith that theft is immoral. I believe that it is self-evident that there is no one who is exempt from the commandment “Thou shalt not steal,” (Exodus 20:15) whether they are in a position of power or not. Theft will always be theft regardless of who engages in the activity and, it will always be wrong. When the threat of aggressive violence is used to take from someone that which belongs to him to give it to someone else, it cannot, in any way be justified. Even when theft has been legally sanctioned, it is still theft, and in fact, as the threat of violence is used, it is worse; it is robbery! Everyone has the natural right to be the sole decision maker regarding what will, or will not be done, with the fruit of his labor. As God is the only being in all of existence with the moral authority to govern man, He is the only one with the right to require us to part with the fruit of our labor for the benefit of others. No state can exist apart from the exploitation of the people. Government must be funded to exist and government does not produce anything to fund its own existence. The argument in support of government is that it exists to protect the rights of the people that it governs. However, as government cannot exist without violating the property rights of the people, the existence of government actually contradicts the stated purpose for its own existence. Therefore, it would be immoral for me to support the existence of government that can only exist by exploiting the very people that it governs.

In my relation to my fellow man, I believe that I am completely sovereign over my own life and the only being who has any sovereign authority over my life is God. As I believe that only God has the moral right to govern our lives, I am a firm believer in the sovereignty of the individual. No human being has the right to require anything from another human being. The only morally just expectation that anyone may have of another is that he NOT violate the rights of life, liberty, or property of anyone. Beyond that, it is God’s to govern.

To suggest that libertarian philosophy is Satanic, is completely absurd.”

Samantha – A Christian libertarian

(Taken from a Facebook post by “I bet Ludwig Von Mises can get more fans than John Maynard Keynes”)

  1. Psilomelane says:

    There are “Satanic” libertarians, and libertarian Satanists, and while parts of both run parallel to the other I would say that yes, generally Modern Satanism has aspects in common with libertarianism, if not outright Objectivism. But to just state “libertarianism is Satanic” means no more than “libertarianism is christian.”

    • swburke21 says:

      Thank you for your input it is much appreciated.

      In my opinion the goal of the American establishment media is to ruin any chance of Libertarian principles catching on with the religious right by painting Libertarianism as satanic. My goal in posting this was not to say that Libertarianism is Christian, but use the post to link the similarities in the values of Christianity and Libertarianism. In a word, you can be Libertarian and Christian too.

      The part of Libertarianism that doesn’t sit well with the far right is the aspect of individualism. To some, self determination is defiance of God’s plan and is seen as blasphemy. Ironically the Republican party is supposed to be in staunch opposition of collectivism and the communistic ideals of social interdependence and subservience, they are supposedly in favor of individual rights and small government. When it comes down to it Libertarians are the real Republicans and the rest are big government neo-conservatives.

  2. Psilomelane says:

    “In my opinion the goal of the American establishment media is to ruin any chance of Libertarian principles catching on with the religious right by painting Libertarianism as satanic.”

    I have to differ somewhat there: I don’t think mainstream US media is consciously, deliberately trying to spoil libertarianism for the religious Right using “Satanism.” Your post was the first I’ve seen anywhere regarding the attempted linking of the two “philosophies,” and nothing above the “tabloid press” even talks about Satanism unless it’s briefly, if Satanism can be used to stir up sensationalism when covering some lurid murder case. At most I would contend that only religious (almost exclusively protestant christian) media is trying to manufacture a correlation between the two philosophies.

    “When it comes down to it Libertarians are the real Republicans and the rest are big government neo-conservatives.”

    Yes, I’d say this is a fair way of summing up the situation as it stands today. Although, I don’t know how libertarian one can say the Republican Party ever truly was, and the small amount of analysis I read tends to classify libertarianism as “classically liberal,” when using these familiar terms.

    • swburke21 says:

      Yes Libertarianism is considered “classically liberal”, that is why calling democrats liberals is inaccurate. Some Democrats today are collectivists, some are fascists, some are communists, and some aresocialists…..but not many are classical liberals.

      The platforms of the parties have went back and forth over the years. At times the Democrats have stood for individualism and fiscal responsibility.

      In this day and age the “conservative” Republican platform is said to be for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty.

      The issue is that the establishment in both parties is almost identical. The neo-conservative republicans and the far left agree on several big issues: intrusions of privacy (neo-cons for safety and dems for health), entitlements (neo-cons want corporate welfare, dems want welfare for all but corporations), war (neo-cons want unilateral pre-emptive wars, dems want coalition run humanitarian wars), debt based spending (neo-cons want unlimited military budgets, dems want unlimited social programs), etc.

      In reference to satanism and libertarianism. The government media is not interested in being forthright in anything that they do. They report Rick Santorum speaking of Satan’s grasp on America, then run a story about how Rick Santorum thinks libertarianism is bad for America. Syndicated radio hosts like Glenn Beck talk about the negligence of Ron Paul’s Libertarian non-interventionist foreign policy and how it will lead to the destruction of God’s people. The correlation has not yet become overt, but at some point if Libertarianism continues to gain ground, the establishment will resort to open attacks on the faith of Libertarians.

  3. Psilomelane says:

    As I wrote last time, mainstream, “establishment” media (not sure what you mean by “government media”) is not -purposefully-, -deliberately- trying to link libertarianism with Satanism. Ron Paul could be elected President in November, and neither NPR, or The WSJ, or, nor The National Review, etc. will say anything about “Satanism” — unless it’s to run a piece on “conspiracy buffs” who believe the two are linked. If you can post a few links to *mainstream* media outfits who’ve tried equating the two I’ll try to check them out to be sure I have an accurate view of the subject.

    Your comments on contemporary sociopolitical tags such as “liberal,” “conservative,” “neo-con,” etc. are thorough and well put, and I think I agreed with all of it.

    While there’s no contradiction per se with christianity and libertarianism, what we consider the “Religious Right” would almost certainly never go for libertarianism — all connotations of Satanism aside — because of classical, staunch libertarian positions on “social issues”: legalizing most drugs and prostitution, expanding immigration, legalizing same-sex marriage, keeping abortion legal, strict separation between church and state, and so on.

  4. Psilomelane says:

    I just now had a few minutes, so did a Google search (the way most average people would look into many topics) for “satanism libertarianism.” Out of the first five pages of results this is the only return I’d consider even remotely representative of “mainstream, establishment” media:

    Beyond that, there’s obviously a counter-culture, or “fringe” discussion of the possible/probable links and sympathies between LaVeyan Satanism and libertarianism/neo-fascism, but personally I’ve yet to encounter any real dialog of these notions in anything that comes at all close to mainstream media (Fox, CBS Nightly News, Mother Jones, The Weekly Standard, BBC, et al.).

    • swburke21 says:

      As I said in my reply, “in my opinion, the establishment media….”. It is my opinion (as speculative and fringe as it may be), based on the way the media frames references to Libertarian ideas and candidates, that they are “demonizing” classic Liberalism . I also said that their accusations are not overt and that the media is never forthright with these types of accusations. They prefer to be subtle until they feel the atmosphere allows for more intense rhetoric. There was discussion all last week about Satan specifically in reference to comments Rick Santorum made. I know this was covered by the Drudge Report and Fox contributors.

      I referred to government media, that is how I see CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR. To some extent or another they have all pushed propaganda fed to them by the government. EX: Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a pretext for war.

      I agree that a lot of the religious right would have numerous stumbling points on a path to Libertarianism. However, just 6-7 years ago I was basically neo-conservative, then I found the principles of individual liberty and personal freedom to be much more appealing.

    • swburke21 says:

      Also, you peaked my curiosity when you referred to Libertarianism as also being neo-facism….please elaborate if you are willing. I can’t begin to imagine any correlation between fascism and libertarianism since fascism is a form of totalitarian rule and libertarianism is about decentralization and individuality.

      • Psilomelane says:

        I didn’t mean to equate libertarianism with neo-fascism — “libertarianism/neo-fascism” — but rather, Modern (LaVeyan/CoS) Satanism with neo/crypto-fascism.

  5. Psilomelane says:

    Again — you are claiming that mainstream media is deliberately, if covertly, attempting to prejudice the “religious right” against libertarianism by framing the discussion in certain, specific ways, but you’ve provided no specific examples to bolster your “opinion.” Everyone has “opinions.”

    “In my opinion the goal of the American establishment media is to ruin any chance of Libertarian principles catching on with the religious right by painting Libertarianism as satanic.”

    This is your original assertion, and I will hold you to it. “Goal” implies conscious intent.

    “I referred to government media, that is how I see CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR. To some extent or another they have all pushed propaganda fed to them by the government. EX: Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a pretext for war.”

    Surely you realize there’s a vast difference between establishment media being lazy, in that they may at times parrot the official policy justifications offered by any given federal administration, and some nebulous notion of “government media?” To claim no distinction is disingenuous, at best. Have you ever worked for any mainstream media organization?

    “I agree that a lot of the religious right would have numerous stumbling points on a path to Libertarianism. However, just 6-7 years ago I was basically neo-conservative, then I found the principles of individual liberty and personal freedom to be much more appealing.”

    In that case, you are the exception to the general rule. We weren’t discussing “neo-cons” being open to genuine libertarianism (hell — even the Libertarian Party), but rather, the “Religious Right” possibly accepting the philosophy to the extent of the majority of your standard Tea Partyers or fundamentalist christians ever endorsing and voting for the LP platform planks on social issues. A Baptist in Midwest America is not going to suddenly reject legal marijuana and prostitution, a defense-only sized military, and “abortion on demand” because they’ve somehow been deliberately spoon-fed some mass media concept that libertarianism is just a facade for Satanism — that demographic has long-since rejected libertarian-level individual liberties and foreign policy ideology. If you really wish to convince me, or any quasi-libertarian otherwise you’ll need to supply real-world, reason-based examples and arguments — not personal “opinions.”

    • swburke21 says:

      Finally we come to the fruition of the discussion. This is a blog not a story on 60 minutes or an article in the New York Times. This is a blog of my opinions and viewpoints as they relate to economics, politics, government, etc. From time to time I post articles or commentary that I find interesting and ask the reader to read and respond. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. I am merely expressing my viewpoints on a variety of topics and sharing information that I find interesting. You disagree with me, that is your opinion and I thank you for sharing it, I encourage you to do so in the future. I certainly appreciate a critical eye and an intelligent discussion.

  6. Psilomelane says:

    Come on — don’t “cop out.” I’m sure you realize seeking refuge in “it’s just my OPINION, man” is an incredibly common, weak, and desperate ploy. Have more intellectual integrity than that; if you posit an opinion, belief, or assertion here in a semi-public forum, and that position is challenged, and objective, verifiable evidence for your claims requested, don’t dodge behind the fig leaf of “opinion.” What are the factors, the foundation for the sociopolitical position you’ve staked out here?

    I’m not trying to just “win” some internet squabble, or make you look bad. I’ve been directly involved in libertarian politics in the past, and one of the aspects that originally drew me to libertarianism is the intellectual rigor, the reason-based thought processes libertarianism/free-thinking/secularism entails. Again — libertarianism and christianity aren’t mutually exclusive, but if you ever hope to win more x-ians, or neo-cons, or what-have-you over to libertarianism you’ve got to be able to back-up your opinions/assertions — such as the “mainstream media” is deliberately trying to discredit libertarianism by associating it with some simple, pop-culture image of “Satanism.” We all need to have “the courage of our convictions,” and not become so emotionally and/or personally invested in certain positions that we can’t concede their likely failings, should they be demonstrated as lacking.

    OK — I don’t want to come across as lecturing (but it may be too late to avoid that), so I’ll conclude here.

  7. Psilomelane says:

    You’re falling prey to typical conspiracy, or “magical” thinking. Of the links you provided, the few that were to mainstream media made no attempt at linking Satanism with libertarianism. If a news outlet reports Rick Santorum is scared of The Devil, and then goes on sometime in the next 48 hours to report Santorum doesn’t like libertarianism, “correlation does not imply causation.” If you claim “media” is using this tactic (and we haven’t even touched the fallacy of the idea that all of mainstream media is some conspiring monolith working together towards covert goals) to undermine the Religious Right’s view of lib., then you imply these conspiratorial media forces are just doing it very subtly, requiring astute “connecting of dots,” you’re theories then cannot of course be disproven. “Occam’s razor” is definitely appropriate here.

    Libertarianism does not need sly innuendo from “The Establishment Media” connecting it to “Satanism” to discredit it in the eyes of religious fundamentalists — it does this quite well itself with no help from Satan. Just this conversation here strikes me as far too indicative of one of the main problems I’ve seen over the years in libertarian politics and activism: to the uninitiated reader/viewer the LP seems filled with “cranks” who become fixated on pointless diversions such as arcane tax theories, or the wording of the LP motto, or the “gold standard,” or Black Helicopters, rather than honestly facing the realities that misfit libertarians can almost never make their sociopolitical cases successfully to typical Americans (let alone the religious right), nor can they consistently run viable political candidates even at the city council level.

    “In my opinion the goal of the American establishment media is to ruin any chance of Libertarian principles catching on with the religious right by painting Libertarianism as satanic.”

    “The following links show that satan has been a topic in mainstream news lately and that the media supported Santorum who openly rejects libertarianism and considers it disgusting has spoken about satan’s grasp on America.”

    Satan has only been in the news lately because of Santorum’s ridiculous claims that a literal Satan is aiming for the United States. Within the first five pages of results from a web search for “satanism” the only thing remotely resembling a mainstream news org. discussing/analyzing Satanism is from a year ago — a piece in The Telegraph about the catholic church and exorcism.

    If you somehow, actually believe Santorum is supported by the media now, just watch what happens if he continues gaining primary momentum, let alone gets the Republican nomination: the mockery and derision heaped on him now will seem faint by comparison.

    • swburke21 says:

      Alright buddy, Im a shitty Libertarian who obsesses over crazy and unfounded conspiracy theories. I carry around a sack of gold and duck behind bushes when black cars drive by. In my spare time I get on my HAM radio and broadcast a show discussing sasquatch and how he is responsible for UFOs and chemtrails.

      You are a supremely intelligent individual who patrols the internet looking for people such as me to educate on the idiocy and simplicity of their less informed lives. You are the Libertarian crusher who is responsible for re-educating every moronic postulator that dares to think outside of the official story and wonder if there is anything outside of the obvious.

      I tip my tin foil hat to you and acknowledge that I am an idiot. You win. Move on.

    • swburke21 says:

      Dear Mr. Super Intelligent,

      Santorum has continued to do well in the primaries and caucuses since you declared that the media would create a shit storm around him if he did……where is the shit storm? He even said that he would end internet pornography if elected, demanded that Puerto Rico adopt English as an official language before they could be considered for statehood, and had a shirtless picture taken of him by a homosexual on a cruise ship…..still, no shit storm. What event is the “fair” media waiting for?

      I tune in to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and others on occasion to hear the establishment chatter. They are consistently attacking Romney and Paul. They are consistently avoiding negative speak about Santorum. These shows are some of the biggest in the nation, how much more “mainstream” does it get?

      • swburke21 says:

        One more thing.

        You claimed that only a few of my links were from mainstream news. They are all mainstream.

        Here are the sources-

        *A video of Glenn Beck from his internet TV Show
        *Huffington Post
        *Washington Examiner
        *Fox News

  8. I like the helpful information you provide in your articles.
    I’ll bookmark your weblog and check again here regularly. I am quite certain I will learn lots of new stuff right here! Good luck for the next!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s