Some Comments on the Present Controversy to Exegete Rushdoony’s “Radical Libertarianism” Statement

(Above: autonomous man)
Does secular libertarianism advocate
theonomy or autonomy?
"Secular libertarianism has no concept
of civil enforcement of the First Table
of the Law ... As to the Second Table,
the penalties under secular
libertarianism would differ, and some
would be truncated altogether."
(photo by Oren neu dag/CC BY -SA 2.5)

by Caleb Hayden 
Biblical Soteriology

[Editor's note: one can read about the controversy here and here, with the latter link being Joel McDurmon's latest comments on the controversy (note the American Vision disclaimer in the first link)]


The debate continues about Rushdoony’s meaning when he contrasted biblical theocracy with dictatorial, tyrannical rule and urged that theocracy in Scripture is instead the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had.

The Core Issue: Defining the Civil Magistrate’s Role with the Non-Aggression Principle vs. Biblical Law

The core issue of controversy has been quite plain all along, it seems: The libertarian basis for limiting the power of the civil magistrate and protecting individual rights is the non-aggression principle, as applied to the civil magistrate’s role. Dr. Talbot explains and analyzes this notion quite well in his article. The other information he provided about the concepts and history behind the word “libertarianism” was indeed interesting and perhaps not entirely necessary in the context of the present controversy. The important point is that the non-aggression principle, as applied to the civil magistrate, means that coercive power is immoral for the state to use unless it is preventing the violation of another person’s rights. Contrary to this, the Scriptures contain various instances of “sins” that are “voluntary” (and thus, by the libertarian standard, do not “aggress” against another person’s rights) but which count as “crimes” worthy of death.

There is more than simply a “foundational theological difference” between the two political systems of libertarianism and theonomic theocracy. The difference extends, not to every conceivable ethical question (for one could inconsistently hold to “theonomic ethics” in his personal morality, yet not in his political platform), but rather to the following narrow yet important point: By what standard does the civil magistrate inflict punishments for crimes and determine the limits of its jurisdiction?

Steve Halbrook’s charge of equivocation seems to stand against those who maintain that theonomic views of libertarianism have the same meaning compared with secular views, as to the scope of political structure and law. In fact, secular libertarianism has no concept of civil enforcement of the First Table of the Law, which is inherent in Rushdoony’s theonomy (thus, a major difference in the “law” part of the political platform). As to the Second Table, the penalties under secular libertarianism would differ, and some would be truncated altogether (e.g., no civil sanction for voluntary sodomy or adultery). Secular libertarianism seeks to limit the civil magistrate on a different basis (an arbitrary rule) than what could be called a "Christian" version of libertarianism (which defines the civil magistrate's role in terms of God's revealed Law; this makes all the difference in the world).

To those who say that libertarianism is inherently biblical and Christ-honoring: This introduces confusion when a system that styles itself “libertarianism” maintains an unbiblical concept such as the non-aggression principle, as applied to the civil magistrate. Far from being biblical, such a system seeks to truncate and overturn Christ’s rule and Law as the standard for the civil realm, which opens the door for arbitrary application (i.e., tyrannical statism) of an unstable system not rooted in God’s Law.

Rushdoony [above] "also cautioned
that the libertarian political ethic
gives too much room for immorality...
because [libertarians] do not
acknowledge God's Law that civilly
proscribes certain "voluntary" acts
that the libertarian system would
not recognize as crimes."

Applying this to Ron Paul

As it relates to definitions of these systems and to Ron Paul, the debate should be primarily about his political philosophy. Here you will see that he adheres to the libertarian “non-aggression principle,” as applied to the civil magistrate. Dr. Talbot’s points are sound regarding the libertarian non-aggression principle and Ron Paul’s adherence to it. This is why some of us charge certain of Ron Paul’s supporters with equivocation when they say that libertarianism is inherently and necessarily biblical and Christ-honoring, for they are (presumably) referring to a “libertarianism” that seeks to limit the civil magistrate by God’s revealed Law. They then ignore the fact that Ron Paul’s libertarianism is at least largely grounded in the humanistic “non-aggression principle” as applied to the civil magistrate (which is the “secular” libertarian position that we oppose).

Are we justified to say that Ron Paul is antinomian across the board? In fact, I maintain that his critics who say this are overstretching and giving supporters of his candidacy room to respond with legitimate criticisms. I like to segment categories and focus specifically on his civil ethics, which is the primary issue at hand as we evaluate a candidate's qualifications for civil office. Is he inconsistent? I hope we can all agree the answer is yes. Are his positions informed by biblical morality at points? Undoubtedly, yes. Our major concern has to be with those who ignore Ron Paul’s problematic statements that incorporate a humanistic, biblically foreign premise (the non-aggression principle, as applied to the civil magistrate) into his political philosophy and platform.

Here is an example that could aid understanding of this important point: A number of theonomic Ron Paul critics (most, in fact) like to say, “Ron Paul thinks it’s fine if gays marry.” Well, he did make statements to this effect, but Ron Paul’s supporters point out that he is probably “personally” against this from a moral standpoint (at least, some of his statements or literature seems to give this impression). How are we to resolve this seeming conflict between his “political” and “personal” views? My answer, again, is to focus specifically on his civil ethic and political philosophy. He believes the civil government cannot force people to be moral in the sense of internal virtue (true enough), and he argues that the extent of civil government’s role, again, is to prevent aggression against others’ rights (he clearly said so numerous times and in numerous ways in the video I linked to above, so this should not be a point of controversy). Yes, civil government should proscribe fraud, theft, coercion, and murder, which are biblically unlawful aggressions against others’ rights; there is no argument here. The controversy is whether civil government should recognize Christ as the ultimate political authority and whether His Law is the standard to define and limit the role of the civil magistrate, protect individual liberty, and enumerate the specific penal sanctions for crimes. 

There is some overlap between libertarianism and the Christian theonomic/theocratic position, especially as to deconstructing the state. Rushdoony himself said libertarians are exceptionally good critics of state power, and I personally think his stance on voting ethics could have given him warrant to support Ron Paul’s candidacy, just as his prominent son (Mark Rushdoony), son-in-law (Gary North), and grandson-in-law (Joel McDurmon) are doing. But as these men likely recognize (and so should we), Rush also cautioned that the libertarian political ethic gives too much room for immorality (especially in the sexual realm) — not because libertarians are of necessity all “personally in favor of” immorality but because they do not acknowledge God’s Law that civilly proscribes certain “voluntary” acts that the libertarian system would not recognize as crimes.

Some will say that if the major outworkings of the two systems, libertarianism and theonomic theocracy, are the same — especially in the desperate battle to fight centralized, statist tyranny — the articulation and application of the important underlying philosophy and foundations can be delayed for more agreeable times. The first problem with this is that compromise covers up the truth; God's Law is redefined so as to rationalize the expedient agenda of the day. (I realize not all Ron Paul supporters are doing this and I appreciate those who will agree with my critique of the libertarian system and its differences with consistent theonomy, but many will be hostile to this critique, ignore it, or explain it away by claiming that their redefinition of theonomy is what was formulated in the beginning.) 

Secondly, the battle will be won by fighting from beginning to end (especially when the battle rages hottest) upon a solid foundation. The faithful soldier expects to receive fire from God's enemies, and He may give his life in the process. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). If now is not the time to fight specifically and principally for Christ's Kingship over the nations and an explicitly biblical expression of His Law as applied to politics, when will the time possibly come? God's Word warns us of wrath and judgment upon ungodliness, so if disobedience got us into this mess, only repentance and obedience on the part of God's regenerate people will ultimately get us out. Ponder these things and consider how God would have you to wisely apply them to your voting decisions and political action — not merely to the question of whether to support Ron Paul, but to every alliance you form, position you articulate, candidate you support, and priority you model before a watching world and future generations (not to mention God's omniscient eye). Take all these decisions captive to the obedience of Christ!