Breaking Free from Paradigms

Breaking free from a paradigm of thought generally takes quite a bit of time. Prior to 2003 my spiritual belief structure was dramatically different from what it is today. I can personally attest that it isn’t easy to “break free” from cherished schools of thought, especially as they begin to erode one by one. Everybody’s path is different, but whatever the trajectory of the journey, unless we are willing to embrace an often frustrating quest for truth, we probably aren’t willing to find the it, but rather settle for that which is easiest to believe. For most of us, shifting paradigms is difficult. And time consuming. And at the beginning, it looks perilous.

One such paradigm most of us are familiar with is the left-right/liberal-conservative spectrum of thought (both politically and theologically). We could imagine it as a line being drawn in the sand, and on one end is the liberal left, and on the other end is the conservative right. When asked where we stand on a particular issue or system of beliefs, most of us place ourselves somewhere along that line. We also picture others somewhere along that line in relationship to our own “point” on it. We say things like, “He’s a little more liberal than I am.” Or, “She’s a little too far to the right politically for my tastes.”

But what if we take the line in the sand, and instead of picturing people along a spectrum of left/liberal or right/conservative, we begin thinking a bit more three-dimensional. What if a better position were somewhere hovering above the line, suspended midair, in a way that defies the traditional dualistic tendency? What if we began thinking in ways that didn’t place people on a line that allowed us to assume so many things about them based on where we place them? What if we thought more deeply about the way we understand theology and politics, and instead of trying to find a “middle ground” that made sense or was a decent compromise, we searched for a higher place that accurately described what it is we are all about?

Those familiar with Brian McLaren’s book A New Kind of Christian will notice that I used the same illustration as he does to describe how we think in a duality, and how this can be limiting to our view of the world. While McLaren used that illustration to talk about new conceptions in faith and Christianity, the same analogy works for the political paradigm of thought. This became apparent to me about three years ago when I became quite interested in the implications for Christ-followers to carry out social justice as part of the gospel message. I read books like God’s Politics by Jim Wallis. I read articles by  Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren, and others calling Christians to stop thinking only about the afterlife and begin living out Jesus’ mission to transform society. Christ’s life-changing movement was to change how we interact socially with one another. If Christianity was about anything, it was about revolutionizing the world with the love of Jesus, which started with the poor, downtrodden, and outcasts in society. So from a theological perspective, this all sounded great. I’m on board. But the practical solutions being proposed by these same people didn’t feel right to me. Something didn’t seem completely justifiable in the way they were going about how to accomplish their ends. Question upon question kept piling up in my mind, and soon it became clear to me that the bulk of the answers I needed could be found in economics.

So while I was still in seminary, with plenty to read, write, and dialogue with, I went to search for some economic texts that would help me on my quest. For most folks, economics sounds terribly boring (and some of it is). But I discovered early on that economics has less to do with gibberish we hear from financial gurus on TV and more to do with how human beings act and interact with one another. Yes, there’s the financial aspect to economic theory, but at its core, I found that economic study is about human action. The great economist seeks to understand how the world works. So if I wanted to change the world as a Christian, I needed to know how the world works, so my commitment to social justice would be ethical and effective.

What I found incredible about economic philosophy, particularly from the Austrian school of economic thought, was that it felt like I was emerging from the left-right line in the sand, and finding a higher place of understanding. Not only were these explanations about life more invigorating, and made an immense amount of common sense, the practical critique in contemporary politics was the same: politics and the social order today are very messed up, and there are better answers out there.

Every paradigm is imperfect, and every explanation of paradigms is imperfect. But in a fallen world it is imperative for us to remember that all ways of describing the world are imperfect and in constant need of revision. Hence the need to revise the duality of liberal/conservative. And even the three-dimensional explanation of life will not always be the best, and others will be proposed.

But whatever the illustration we use, there is a freshness and vitality to breaking free from the liberal/conservative paradigm that plagues our political dialogue. If we can break free from thinking in a dualistic fashion, there’s a fresh new air to breathe above the ground. It might actually help us think more clearly!

My Census Experience

After reading several accounts on LRC and other blogs about the belligerent Census workers traipsing up to our door and demanding unconstitutional information from citizens, I was a bit disappointed today when the Census worker came to my door (yes, on a Sunday afternoon!). My wife answered the door while I was on the phone, then came up and asked me to talk to her, since I had looked forward to such an encounter and have rehearsed in my head some of the things I would have to say to a Census worker if they came to my house and demanded things from me.

As I descended down the stairs I heard my wife say, “Be nice!” Okay, I’ll try, I thought. To my surprise, this lady wasn’t rude, wasn’t belligerent, and was actually rather friendly. She said she was sent because there was “missing information” on my Census form. I informed her that I filled out all that I was comfortable filling out (which, by the way was the number of people living here and our first names). She asked what that information was, and I told her. She attempted to ask me several other questions, and I said I was uncomfortable giving that information to her, and she didn’t pursue the issue any further!

There was something ironic about her presence at my front door. There was no vehicle present that she travelled in. I asked her where her car was, and she said that they are asked not to park in homeowner’s driveways out of respect for their property (I don’t think she actually used the word “property,” but it was implied in her answer). I thought this was a bit strange, and I wanted to rhetorically ask, “So they want you to ask me questions about my life and home information, but they won’t let you park in my driveway out of respect?! Isn’t that kind of a twisted sense of respect?” But I only made a passing sarcastic remark about how silly such a rule really was. She laughed with me, then offered me the phone number of the local bureau. While I declined, saying I could look it up if I needed it, I glanced at the paper she was offering, with the phone number written on it. I did a double take, and asked to see the number again so I could memorize it.

Guess what the first three digits were… 666

Not joking whatsoever.

Three Ways to Get Money

Method #1: Inherit Money

This method is probably the one that is least likely to happen to most of us, and is the most likely to require little work in order to do so. While some inheritances are given after much work and provenance, inheritances are typically looked at as “gifts,” and they often are gifts.

Method #2: Work

This method is the toughest, because in a free exchange economy, it is difficult to “get what you want” when you are required to trade with others who are willing to engage in trading with you. In a free market, I don’t have the right or the ability to make you buy something from (i.e. trade with) me. In order for you to want what I have to offer, I have to be creative, innovative, or otherwise emulate and improve upon what already exists. Ask any businessman, and he’ll tell you that while he may be gifted in entrepreneurship, it’s a long road of hard knocks and failures upon failures. But after succeeding in providing goods and services others want, profit is earned, and often enjoyed, even shared.

Method #3: Thievery

While it’s certainly not the easiest of the three methods, and could potentially be more work than entrepreneurship, it’s certainly the immoral choice. Even if we acquire money through thievery at one point in our lives—perhaps by stealing at a convenience store or other vendor—it isn’t how we build a livelihood. Most of us choose to work hard and earn money that way.

What is amazing to me is the twisted and contorted explanations that are offered to us that justify Method #3. While taxation may be justifiable as a “necessary evil” (I don’t know if I agree with that, but it’s certainly not an unreasonable explanation), it is also abused frequently and to a massive extent. Yet if we think about the simplicity of how somebody (or some group) can acquire money, the only method the State has at its disposal is Method #3. On a personal level, we know exactly what method is most praiseworthy and respectable. Why not apply those same morals to collectives such as the government?

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 4: Humility

[God] has shown all you people what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8, (TNIV)

One of the more beautiful compatibilities between libertarian social theory and Christian faith is that Christian faith is called to honor and respect those with whom we disagree. We don’t have specific formulas for people to follow, nor do we expect others to choose to live as we do. It’s actually quite simple: live and let live. Contrast that with progressives who have plans for everyone, regardless of their input or consent. Libertarians, if they are consistent, will not require nor seek ways to require everybody to live by their personal standards. In short, libertarians respect the personal beliefs and ethics of other people. What’s even more profound about this standard is that it advocates an equal respect to all persons, regardless of class, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Nobody gets to live above the law, no matter how popular or how powerful they may become.

If you think about it, nobody really likes to be told how to live, how to act, what to eat, what to drink, who to be friends with, or who to marry. When we are in smaller social settings, we don’t declare to people that they ought not wear a certain dress because we think it’s too immodest, or drink certain liquids because of their sugar content. At most we can publicly criticize smokers, but even then we admit their right to smoke.

In some sense we all live the way we do because we believe it is the right way to live. Whether we think we’ve figured it out or not, we’d like others to think and live somewhat similarly to how we live. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that. It’s part of human nature. We can even go an extra step forward and converse with others and encourage them to live as we do, join our cause, or believe our beliefs. Every friend in the world ought to encourage and challenge others in a way that is productive and that does not debase or take away somebody’s dignity.

Christians are notorious in name for being a group of people who have everything “right” and need to impress upon the world the behaviors that everybody ought to live by. Church history is filled with institutional prejudice, tyranny, and downright injustice. Whenever the Church and the State get in bed with each other, bloodshed is soon to follow. But the Christian faith is not about such violence and coercion. The Christian faith is about peace, respect, and love for one’s neighbor.

Libertarians are notorious for being being a group that is selfish and do not think about the common good. Oftentimes the public face of libertarianism is like the public face of Christianity: there’s a lot to be lacking, and a lot to be criticized. But the fundamental feature of libertarianism is peace. Peace is a principle that is often misapplied. Bringing “peace to the Middle East” through war is certainly misapplied. But truly following a principle of peace means that we acknowledge that others deserve the same peaceful action that we demand for ourselves. It requires that we give up our “right” to act as we please, and respect the rights of others whose peace we might disrupt. In other words, it requires us to humble ourselves in accordance with the respect we believe all others deserve.

In a nutshell, libertarianism and Christianity intersect in a very interesting way. Christian faith teaches us to respect and love others. It also teaches us to be humble and to consider others as better than ourselves. Libertarianism, rightly understood, advocates a very similar teaching; that is, we must respect others as their rights are equal to ours.

Society Based on Non-Aggression?

If people aren’t open-minded enough to even consider an alternative view, they’re their own worst problem.

—Doug Casey

While I realize that sometimes simplicity is overrated, the principles by which this video presents how screwed up our world is are worth considering. (HT2 RPM)

Click here for the video.

Truth-telling about Government Schools

I just finished reading this inspiring piece. If I weren’t sitting at work on my lunch break, I’d feel the freedom to shed many tears. My son is almost three, which means in fewer than two years we will have to make a painful decision: put him in a government-run compulsory education prison school, or put him in a non-government institution that has passed the government’s compulsory requirements for being open for business. I suppose we could home-school him, and maybe we will. But I don’t really want to make this decision.

Erica Goldson graduated as valedictorian at Coxsackie-Athens High School on June 25, 2010, and delivered the speech at her graduation ceremony. Her principal and superintendents must have been wetting their pants.

Here’s a taste:

I am now accomplishing that goal. I am graduating. I should look at this as a positive experience, especially being at the top of my class. However, in retrospect, I cannot say that I am any more intelligent than my peers. I can attest that I am only the best at doing what I am told and working the system. Yet, here I stand, and I am supposed to be proud that I have completed this period of indoctrination. I will leave in the fall to go on to the next phase expected of me, in order to receive a paper document that certifies that I am capable of work. But I contend that I am a human being, a thinker, an adventurer – not a worker. A worker is someone who is trapped within repetition – a slave of the system set up before him. But now, I have successfully shown that I was the best slave. I did what I was told to the extreme. While others sat in class and doodled to later become great artists, I sat in class to take notes and become a great test-taker. While others would come to class without their homework done because they were reading about an interest of theirs, I never missed an assignment. While others were creating music and writing lyrics, I decided to do extra credit, even though I never needed it. So, I wonder, why did I even want this position? Sure, I earned it, but what will come of it? When I leave educational institutionalism, will I be successful or forever lost? I have no clue about what I want to do with my life; I have no interests because I saw every subject of study as work, and I excelled at every subject just for the purpose of excelling, not learning. And quite frankly, now I’m scared.

Latent Pseudo-religion

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

In a personal correspondence with my friend Norman Horn from LCC, Norman wrote something incredibly profound. It has been something I’ve felt for quite a while, but haven’t put into the poignant words he wrote (emphasis mine):

“There is a latent pseudo-religion that lingers in all of us before we make the jump to being anti-state. It was inculcated in us as children, was cultivated by parental examples, and is reinforced through media and public figures on a daily basis. This “statolatry” even walks alongside our REAL religion and co-opts its theology for its own benefit (cf. Religious Right). In general, we can call it the front line for Christians in the “war of ideas.” It is our ultimate enemy in this war, because the battle is fought both internally and externally. We have to be merciful about it, because at one time we too were caught in the trap, but just like we never back down in calling sin by its name so should we never back down in revealing this evil for what it is.”

Though I cannot speak for Norman, a little bit of background on me might help. My “jump to being anti-state” is certainly not complete. And it might be helpful to say that being anti-state does not mean being anti-government, especially anti-governance. Law and order must exist. Rule of law (rather than the rule of whimsical men) is necessary and proper for social order. But as a Christian it seems as though our calling is to name evil for what it is, and stand up against it. I would say this is especially true when evil is infiltrating our faith and our philosophies. While it is always true that our man-made conceptions of faith and philosophy are always subject to incompleteness, it is the responsibility of every Christian to call out that which doesn’t coincide with the ethics of the Kingdom of God.

It is that principle that Norman and I are indelibly committed.

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 3: Antiwar

While some Christians might find it difficult to believe, a christianity is not a pro-war faith. In fact, Christians ought to be at the forefront of advocating for peace, rather than being in the position of advocating some war abroad or justifying the murdering of others with whom we have disagreements. Some Christians even go so far as to advocate or justify torture, ironic because our faith is built upon the nonviolent resistance of Jesus, who himself was tortured to the worst degree.

Libertarians are not always antiwar, but the principles of libertarianism, as we saw in part one, were that of nonaggression and peaceful behavior. By its very nature, libertarians believe that war is immoral, with the exception of self defense. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been a war in American history that could justifiably fall under that category (unless you consider the Confederate States fighting in self-defense).

Contrast this belief that war is wrong to that of progressives and conservatives who believe that war is a legitimate when it suits a political agenda such as filling the coffers of your rich buddies, or perhaps to justify increasing government spending to “stimulate” an economy. Libertarians are the most consistent when they say war is wrong. Secular libertarian websites such as AntiWar.com are calling out why the wars the United States government is carrying out is immoral and wrong. This is fundamentally an issue of justice, something Christians ought to be committed to.

Yes, I realize that there are “just war” theories, and perhaps there is merit to those arguments. Maybe they are theologically correct. But ask yourself the question (as Paul Green does), “How many innocent people would you be willing to kill – purely to defend yourself?” Because even if you advocate for a just war, there are always innocent victims. And if you think reading the Old Testament gets you off the hook being “pro-war,” try reading this article by Paul Green.

So while many Christians justify war for this reason or that, this coinciding principle of peace stands at the heart of every libertarian, and ought to be an easy embrace for any follower of Christ.

Talking Freedom in Montauk

Today we flew the Skylane to Montauk, Long Island, with two friends for the day. Right now we are stuck in a coffee shop waiting out a storm. But we had a great conversation with one of our friends who was born and grew up in a Muslim country. He has lived in North America for quite some time, and he was commenting on how within 300 years of being inhabited by immigrants from western Europe, we’ve been able to subdue the land and cultivate it and use it to prosper, whereas in 7,000 years his nation has been unable or unwilling to cultivate the entire land for use.

The key, he said, was that freedom invites creativity, encourages people to innovate and pursue their own destiny, and what results is prosperity when those values are ingrained in a society.

He warned, however, that Americans seem to take freedom for granted because we have had it for so long an it seems to be a forgotten value.

We talked about so much more, but I wanted to share briefly our little chat.

Ron Paul on the Morality of Markets

One of the biggest lies coming from the progressive movement regarding free market advocates is that we are not very “morality-based” in our economics. Instead of focusing on economic policies that have moral outcomes, they say we focus on the amoral and perhaps immoral economic outcomes, regardless of their moral.

While nothing could be further from the truth, Ron Paul has some great audio from his recent meetings with the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. You can sense the moral pleading in his voice, asking the Fed Chairman to reconsider his views that are harming the poor and hurting the nation.

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 1: Non-Aggression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

Progressives absolutely love to tell those in power about their expertise in how the world ought to run. Progressive Christians, opportunists they are, jump at offering their better and more enlightened ethics of the kingdom into this political arrangement. Compassionately and with good intentions, they seek to change the world through changing the structures of power to lean their way, so that the goals, outcomes, and real-world arrangements of society look like they believe it ought to look. Justice will reign, they say, when the right legislation is passed, the right regulations are placed on commerce and exchange, and the right leaders are in place. (We need to forget for the moment that, by definition, the “right legislation, regulations, and leaders” would lead to whatever ideal society they are looking for. But such shows the arrogance of progressives.)

What Progressive Christians especially forget is the key ingredient to the outcome of social justice. The idea of freedom, or liberty, is essential to life, and—yes—justice. And here is where I believe libertarianism offers an incredible insight into the ethics of social interaction. This insight is the foundational principle of libertarians, and is quite obviously very compatible with the Christian faith.

This cornerstone principle is called the “non-aggression axiom,” which states that no person has the right to aggress the property or person of another person, with exception of self-defense. So unless you have previously been aggressed upon, you should not, under any circumstances, do unto another something they do not wish that you do.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this arrangement sounds very Christian to me. Would Jesus approve of our aggressing another to do what we would have him do? Would Jesus approve of our enforcement upon another a belief with which he did not agree? I doubt it. In fact, I believe Jesus would probably go one step further, and disregard the “defense” exception of the axiom, since he tells us to “turn the other cheek” if someone aggresses us, and to pray for those who persecute us. But that doesn’t exclude the non-aggression principle.

What most people don’t think about is the flip side of this argument. While I’ll address the so-called “selfish” components of libertarianism in another post, I should briefly point out that this principle means we passionately defend other people’s right to not be aggressed upon. It’s definitely easy to say “Don’t bother me,” and point out the inherent selfishness in that statement. But we ought not forget the converse, which means, “Leave them alone, too!” “Them” is our neighbor, the poor person, the downtrodden, the widow and orphan. But that is not, as it might be misconstrued, a call to leave people to fend for themselves. It’s akin to saying, “Don’t harm them!”

So at the start, Christianity is indeed compatible with libertarianism’s foundational principle. Both seek to respect one’s neighbor. Both defend everyone’s right to life and liberty. And both share at least half of Jesus’ principle of peace, though of course Jesus would probably go further.

Can a Christian be a Libertarian?

Three years ago I became immensely interested in the issues surrounding the theological and moral notion of “social justice.” I was growing increasingly aware and agreed with the idea that the gospel of Jesus Christ was not primarily about our individual salvation, our personal relationship with Jesus Christ, or how individuals can “go to heaven when they die.” Those questions are all important, but they reflect a contextualized segment of the gospel. Jesus came as part of an endeavor by the Creator-god to rescue the creation from its fallen state. Jesus was the catalyst for global change through his life message, his stated mission, and his death and resurrection. Jesus, in just about every important way, was the starting point for a whole new way of life, for individuals, for social groups, for the world. In short, Jesus changes everything. With a few exceptions, anybody who has claimed to have an encounter with Jesus will say their lives were radically affected in a positive way.

So when it became obvious to me that this radical, life-changing Jesus had a more holistic message than the go-to-heaven-when-you-die message (which, by the way, he never said), my Christian faith and living took on a whole new meaning and relevance. The life message of Jesus was nonviolence, concern for the outcasts and poor in society, and an unequivocal choice by his followers to engage the world as he did. His stated mission, a restatement of a prophecy from the Old Testament about the Messiah, was to “preach good news to the poor,” “proclaim freedom to prisoners,” and “set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18). And his death revealed a passionate commitment to nonviolence, nonaggression, and loving sacrifice. His resurrection, the cornerstone to the whole movement, meant (among many things) that death was not powerful enough to stop his mission and message, and was a foretaste of the redemption that was to happen to the entire cosmos. Participants in this new kingdom were to be part of a building toward this future hope, a peaceful society in which social justice was to reign. Nobody would be oppressed. Everybody would be free. The world would be “put to rights,” as N.T. Wright says.

Ask any libertarian, and those goals sound like a libertarian fantasy world! Yet those who advocate and promote social justice believe that libertarian philosophy is based on worldly and unbiblical ideas. My very own salvation has been questioned by others who simply can’t understand why I advocate for libertarian social ethics.

It is an absurd myth to believe that embracing liberty and believing in the mission of Jesus are incompatible. If you are a Christian (especially a “progressive Christian”), the message of Jesus is not only compatible with libertarian social philosophy, it thrives within it!

Their compatibility, however, does not mean the two are identical value systems. It is one thing for a social system to be permissive in nature while one’s personal (and even social) value system is greatly different. Even the story of God, Adam, and Eve reveals that simply because God permitted Adam and Eve to choose a painfully wicked choice, it does not automatically follow that God endorsed their actual choice.

I could be completely rude and say that social justice Christians are highly judgmental, self-righteous, narrow-minded, and are concerned not about others but about their own gratification in seeing society manipulated to suit their ends. But that wouldn’t be nice of me. Instead I’ll just chalk it up to sloppy analysis and an ignorance or unwillingness to understand and process the value system of libertarian thought. It’s patently unfair to compare one’s unquestionably moral and well-intentioned commitments to compassion, service, and justice to the subpar examples of outcomes of misapplied libertarian thought. In short, you don’t compare your best to others’ worst.

And let’s be honest, there is a lot that’s unappealing to the attitudes and actions of those who claim to love individual freedom. The “leave me alone” message does seem selfish, and it certainly appeals to the self-centered nature in each of us. For those who don’t understand it, it will likely leave a distasteful flavor in their mouths, and can stifle any true interest in libertarian principles.

But at its core, libertarian thought isn’t about being “left alone.” It isn’t about ignoring social needs. It isn’t about worshiping the free market, or abolishing the federal government. At its core, the message is consistent and radical embracing of nonaggression. Last I checked, that core principle is profoundly compatible with the Christian faith.

But just comparing this axiom to the Christian faith doesn’t make a philosophy or lifestyle necessarily Christian. To be sure, libertarians worldwide would be rather adamant that their principles aren’t based in Scripture, don’t stem from Jesus Christ, nor do they require a religious basis to be worthy of value. What is necessary to show that libertarianism is not only compatible with Christianity, it is the most compatible social philosophy for Christians to embrace.

In the next few posts, I will share my thoughts on why I believe this to be the case.