Why I Care

loveneighbor If you’ve followed this blog for longer than two posts, you’ll probably recognize a familiar theme obsession: liberty. For about the past year I’ve spent much of my studies researching basic economics, philosophy of liberty, and the nature of human action and interaction, all the while thinking about politics in the United States during a notable election season.

Libertarians often get a bad reputation for being selfish, uncaring, and cold-hearted toward those without means. Ranting about personal liberties and freedom from government coercion tend to give the impression that justice is not important to them. Their fight for liberty is seen as a “leave me alone and stop taking my money” agenda. For those whose passion in life is fighting for justice, and for Christians especially who want everyone to be compassionate, merciful, and generous to those in need, this approach seems unbiblical, or without compassion.

I will develop a more theologically-based reason why libertarian philosophy is more biblical than any other philosophy, but recently I realized why I’m so obsessed with this topic. It’s not because I want to be left alone, or because I want to hoard all my money, or because I believe every politician is bad. It’s not because I want an “every man for himself” policy. There are many reasons why I’m passionate about liberty, and just about every one of them has to do with everyone else. My liberties are important, but I’m not poor, I have zero debt, and I have talent and capabilities and other benefits available to me that I had nothing to do with (white, middle-class, etc.). And even though the State forces me to give up nearly 20% of my hard-earned income each year, I still have the means to do fairly well for me and my family. I’m not entirely worried about me right now.

So it all comes down to fighting for the liberties of everyone else. I can’t educate the poor in inner-city Philadelphia. I can’t feed the poor in downtown L.A. I can’t clothe the homeless in New York City. And if I wanted to, I can only do so much. So that leaves me with only a few options:

Use as much of my 0wn resources to feed, clothe, and educate as many as I can
Rally support of others to use their own resources and pool together to feed, clothe, and educate as many as we can
Use the force of the State to make others give up their resources to use them for my own good will toward those in need

With my limited resources, Option #1 only gets me so far. With my limited charisma, Option #2 only gets me so far. Within ethical boundaries, Option #3 is a power-play over the rest of society. How on earth can I believe that to do good I have to enroll the organization (the State) with the most amount of weaponry to enforce upon others my sense of good will? So much “public good” and “common good” actions are justified under the unethical proposition of Option #3. The State is a power-play over others, whether it be by forcing one to give up his resources, or if it means forcing another to adhere to a friendly tyranny (“common good”). For me to avoid Option #3 at all costs is to consider my neighbor as better than myself. It is to respect the property of those around me. It is to honor God’s giving to them resources to steward, and not take those stewarded properties as my own. Options 1 & 2 are the best efforts I have at my disposal.

I care so much about this because it is the only consistent way for me to live as a Christian and not violate the rights of one group while fighting for the rights of another. It is the only consistent way to treat people as equals. It is the only way to fight for the rights of people I do not know.

There are a lot of people that I don’t know and will never know. But I still care about them.

View Comments to “Why I Care”

SS 9 February 2009 at 3:51 pm #

I think Option #2 is key. Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on creative way to rally the resources and energy of people to act on their own good will–to use liberty to promote public good. You're right that the libertarian agenda seems to come off as self-centered and self-protective. But I also agree that liberty is the best and only way to truly empower the good will of the people. I think most people stumble over figuring out just how to go about doing this.
john 12 February 2009 at 7:13 pm #

I read an argument once that not only is libertarianism the most morally-reconcilable political philosophy with respect to Christianity, but also the most practically beneficial. After all, if government is not trying to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide for the widow and orphan, then when Christians do it their goodness will shine all the brighter. Likewise, if the general public is uninhibited from forceful bans on drugs, prostitutes, etc., then the purity of Christian conduct will be all the more visible vis-a-vis the morality of the people at large.
a 16 February 2009 at 12:11 am #

John: That's a very strange argument. You seem to be advocating that the government do less so that when Christians do actions of mercy they look better, and that lawlessness should increase so that our good deeds will shine brighter. That is the opposite of what Paul is saying in Romans… “Should we keep on sinning so that grace may increase? May it never be.”
EvaA 16 February 2009 at 9:47 am #

I have to agree that John's argument is odd… intentions matter. It does not strike me as very Christ-like to want to do good works so one looks better in the eyes of others, or even so that anyone notices at all. That's a very selfish motive… “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” (Philippians 2:3)

Doug, I appreciate that you wrote this, and I find it an interesting perspective. Although I never really saw libertarianism as a cold and unfeeling political philosophy, I also never heard it argued that it is an ideal vehicle for compassion. It makes sense, though! Doing good for good's own sake is a better (more pure) motive than doing good because one is compelled to do so (as through taxpayer-funded social programs). I have never had a problem, personally, with funding social programs or sacrificing for the common good, but your argument is sound.

The only problem I see is that if enough people are unwilling to help, do we simply let others suffer? I struggle with this… which is more important:

–protecting people from funding social programs through compulsory taxation
–alleviating suffering caused by not enough voluntary help (no funded social programs)

Doug, you have given me a lot to think about. As I reread the fourteen core precepts of Engaged Buddhism (which I practice), I see certain parts of them in a wholly new light. I was going to go more deeply into this, but I think I will do so in my own blog entry! I need to keep reading your site, however. You and I may be coming from extremely different places, but the amount of common ground we have is ever-increasing. I respect your intellectual rigor and willingness to consider viewpoints that are not your own… and let it never be said that my own opinions are inflexible and changeless!
xfree9 16 February 2009 at 9:59 am #

To John's defense, I don't think that's at all what Paul said in Romans. Paul's point was that we should not keep sinning so that grace can be shown. John's argument is that when the State is not providing for “the least of these,” the Church can shine, sorta like Jesus was saying we are to be lights in the darkness, or the salt of the earth.

Moreover, John did not advocate for “lawlessness.” Libertarians (or most of them) are for the rule of law, which shows favoritism to nobody. In this environment, so the theory goes, the Church can shine because it can care for those in need.
a 16 February 2009 at 12:16 pm #

My lawlessness comment came from his recommendation to remove bans on drugs and prostitutes…..
“Likewise, if the general public is uninhibited from forceful bans on drugs, prostitutes, etc., then the purity of Christian conduct will be all the more visible vis-a-vis the morality of the people at large.”
This is implying that a removal of the laws on drugs and prostitutes will increase the criminal behavior, therefore allowing Christians to look even more visible. That is simply bizarre logic, and it is unbiblical. Regardless of your preference for political systems… (liber, repub, democ., or otherwise) to use an increase in poor moral behavior (drugs, prostitution) as a means to justify a political stance because it will further enhance the visibility of Christianity is really off-based. That is little more than works righteousness or legalism, which is a non-gospel based system that seeks to judge your merit based on how well you adhere to a system of rules in comparison to those around you.
xfree9 16 February 2009 at 12:20 pm #

It's certainly not clear whether or not a free society would indeed help the poor and those in need. There is evidence that Americans in general are generous people when they have the means to be generous. During Katrina, Americans took charge and helped out their “neighbors” (loosely defined as fellow citizens) far better than the State did. Money sent overseas to charitable NGOs far exceeded the money given by the US government. It doesn't take a hard-core libertarian to recognize the effectiveness of private charity. None of them is perfect, but neither is the State, whose means of gaining the funds to do so is to violently extract it from citizens.

In America today it is very easy to write off needing to help the poor because “the State helps them,” or “my tax dollars are helping them.” What a poor excuse! Yet many believe that since tax dollars are going to help the poor, they don't “need” to give any extra of their own money (which was already taken from them in the form of taxes). So on the other hand, if one is skeptical of the view that Americans are not generous and compassionate, why should we expect them to treat the poor in any other way other than, “There's a place for them to get help” when we've drained them of resources and responsibility to actually help?
xfree9 16 February 2009 at 12:34 pm #

Oh, I see. I didn't have that comment in view. In that case, the comparison would be accurate, and I'd argue also that an increase in immorality is not “good” for the Church because it can then “shine.” That's not what I meant.
EvaA 16 February 2009 at 1:09 pm #

A few issues occur to me as I ponder private charities stepping into a void created by ending state social programs… please let me know what you think.

–Distribution of services: without some kind of overarching organization, how could resources be effectively and efficiently distributed to a wide variety of organizations serving a wide variety of needs? In other words, what happens if everyone gives their money to Charity A, and leaving Charities B and C un- (or under-) funded? It's just generally a logistical question… it seems more challenging than when there is a central agency or network handling the allotments.

–What about situations where a charity has filled a social need, but puts discriminatory conditions on receipt of benefits?

Just things I'm pondering. I do agree that Americans tend to be generous when, as you say, they have the means… and of course, they would have more to give if less were taken.
xfree9 16 February 2009 at 6:17 pm #

Distribution of services – My response would first be, “What makes you believe that a central service or agency would do better? We already have massive failures of central government, be it federal or state, to provide for the poor, and they are the ones with the most “means” at their disposal (in terms of system of distribution, not assets). If everyone gives to Charity A, then A can expand to provide more services. If they do not, Charity B fills the gap. It's similar to business, with the model that “works” actually continuing, rather than having the power of the State to keep funding failed organizations.

Discrimination – I don't really have an answers for you here, but my first instinct is to say that the needs will be filled by Charity B and C who do not discriminate. Sure, there will be those that do, and they may succeed in certain areas. If they do, fine. If they don't, then they won't succeed and another will take its place. But like I said, I don't have any answers, just thoughts. So don't criticize me too hard!
EvaA 19 February 2009 at 12:39 am #

I hope I don't come across as critical! I don't have the answers, either… I just think the discussions are important (as you obviously do, too!). I know we both approach our views from very different perspectives, but I enjoy talking about these things with you (both in person and virtually). I never intend to sound like a jerk, and hope I don't!

Good responses, by the way.
jurisnaturalist 3 March 2009 at 1:32 pm #

In regards to the concern over whether there will be enough charity available to the needy under Options #1 and #2 I must remind us that God is sovereign over the suffering of His innocents.
That is, the needy are HIS needy, not ours. Taking the leap into saying, we must save them and let that end justify our means (such as Option #3) is to deny God's sovereignty, or to say He does not care. It is also to absolve ourselves of being personally responsible to God, and not the innocents, nor to each other, nor even to ourselves for keeping #1, and exhorting others unto #2. Making ourselves responsible to anyone other than God is a form of idolatry.

In regards to the other thread here, we might not say that our goodness should become more visible to the glory of God, but rather we appear more peculiar, and the contrast in motives is made more visible. That is, we do not have collectivist, empathetic, affectionate, or familiar love for those we are helping, we do not need to. Instead, we have love for Christ in response to what He did for us. We do not anticipate a reward for our charity, rather He is our reward and we have Him in full already.
We behave altruistically because we have a regenerate nature, and we walk in the Spirit, doing only what we see our Father in heaven doing.
There is a disinterested element to this which is liberating from other people and binding to our God.
Nathanael Snow
jurisnaturalist 3 March 2009 at 6:32 pm #

In regards to the concern over whether there will be enough charity available to the needy under Options #1 and #2 I must remind us that God is sovereign over the suffering of His innocents.
That is, the needy are HIS needy, not ours. Taking the leap into saying, we must save them and let that end justify our means (such as Option #3) is to deny God's sovereignty, or to say He does not care. It is also to absolve ourselves of being personally responsible to God, and not the innocents, nor to each other, nor even to ourselves for keeping #1, and exhorting others unto #2. Making ourselves responsible to anyone other than God is a form of idolatry.

In regards to the other thread here, we might not say that our goodness should become more visible to the glory of God, but rather we appear more peculiar, and the contrast in motives is made more visible. That is, we do not have collectivist, empathetic, affectionate, or familiar love for those we are helping, we do not need to. Instead, we have love for Christ in response to what He did for us. We do not anticipate a reward for our charity, rather He is our reward and we have Him in full already.
We behave altruistically because we have a regenerate nature, and we walk in the Spirit, doing only what we see our Father in heaven doing.
There is a disinterested element to this which is liberating from other people and binding to our God.
Nathanael Snow
Brooke 20 August 2010 at 3:46 am #

I love this. This is why. It’s a pain to care about humanity and God’s children all the time. I understood a lot about the reason I care (I think ) from Ayn Rand’s book “selfishness.” I think i’s a fine line between caring for others over yourself, but still care for yourself too. Thats just me, I can turn a genuine desire to do good and praise God, into an idol of my own that takes precedence over taking care of myself. How Unselfish are we supposed to be…

Love the blog